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.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
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 pm
Eight 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.
#81
Which means that Clinton, under your CORRECT logic BTW, had absolutely no reason to fire all the USAs as he entered office.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:56 pmSometimes I wonder if the comment trolls on this and other left-leaning websites are actually lefties themselves, trying to stir things up and get more responses in comments.
If so, more power to ‘em! More money in ad sales for the lovely left! Thank you, trolls, whoever you are!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:57 pm#143-Jake,
So, again calling for the murder of Americans -
I would never advocate bombing the New York Times building (unless I knew for certain only the editors and reporters were in it)…Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
- just because you may not like what they WRITE! Please explain to me what the difference is between you calling for the murder of innocent Americans for ideological reasons and a “terrorist” calling for the murder of innocent Americans for ideological reasons.
You are not just a coward, Jake, but you are a pathetic one at that.
Good riddance.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:57 pm“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.
Comment by Tracy — March 14, 2007 @ 3:49 pm”
But it’s OK that Bush did the same thing in 2001??? He fired all of them too and replaced them all……
I don’t see one instance of comment about this, only that Clinton……. blah blah blah
March 14th, 2007 at 3:57 pm“Jimmy Carter was never called to testify for firing Marston.”
was marston in the middle of an investigation that indicted the #3 at the c.i.a.? if so, i’ll rev up the time machine, and we’ll get to the bottom of this. otherwise what does carter have to do with the fact that the bush administration misused the patriot act to sidestep the senate’s authority?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:58 pmSorry, 153 s/b 152 – these cataracts suck as well.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:58 pm“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.”
comment by roger
Ouch!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:59 pmOh that must hurt to hear TPers!
#98
“And Hitler had the complete legal right to Gas 6 million Jews. What’s your point – sicko putz?”
Funny, I think you believe Hitler did.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:59 pmLOL Walt — the following is a QUOTE from the CRS Report itself about:
“. . . 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, for example, 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.”
Now, you were saying something about MY reading comprehension?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:01 pm#162-Walt,
If you think cataracts suck, you should try driving a rinkon.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:02 pm“RemoveBush:
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.
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 3:51 pm”
Please learn to read….
I never said it wasn’t. I said that it was LOOOONNNNGGG ago and that it was only one, not 8. Not that it’s correct, but it is more serious when attorneys are being fired for political reasons in groups (especially ones that have filed charges against Republicans that are let go).
I can see that YOU will never see this in a logical or moral way. It’s only about a party for you and not about the country.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:02 pmWait, Jake at #155… so now it’s because of the terrorists? Do you mean “independents” who advocating blowing up buildings here in the US of A?
Is that why Bush needs to trust them 100%?
Please do explain, Jake.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:05 pm#150
Good question.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pmBush has absolutely ruined, soiled and tarnished the reputation of the presidency. It is lie after lie after lie… Will we and the world ever regain respect of this executive office? Bring on the priests.. we need some more purifying…
Guatemalan Mayan priests to ‘purify’ sacred site after Bush visit
March 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pmWould someone, anyone, tell the chymp what the phrase
March 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pm“at the pleasure of the president” really means?
Thanks.
Well, I can see why the Trolls/GOP Operatives would want to spin this sucker as fast and hard as possible.
It could very well bloom into a fill-on OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE investigation, if it continues on like this.
One can hope.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pmWhose morals? removebush, yours?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pmTuber:
I am fine waiting for a military court finding of treason first, if you are.
pgw:
Does the six-time Democratic Rep. from Philadelphia, Joshua Eilberg, qualify?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pmFrom This Description
United States Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. The United States Attorneys have three statutory responsibilities under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:
the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the Federal government;
the prosecution and defense of civil cases in which the United States is a party; and
the collection of debts owed the Federal government which are administratively uncollectible.
No where in here about shilling for partisan political advantage.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pmHmmm.
RemoveBush:
Oh, so you just want more recent firings, in groups only? I will be back with the list of U.S. Attorneys Clinton fired who were looking into Rostenkowski and Whitewater, etc.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pm#160
I agree that Bush shouldn’t have done it just like Clinton shouldn’t have done it. The USAs serve the people and the Constitution, but this whole argument by TP and other liberals that Bush shouldn’t have done it because Clinton didn’t do it is a BS.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:10 pmGoehl:
Have you read any of the threads below? My opinion is that Bush is not “lying” about this one. So, maybe you can tell me what you think is the most obvious “lie” Bush has ever told, in your opinion.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:11 pmThe big lie that “every president does this…” is starting to take hold. Last night on Anderson Cooper’s “AC 360,” the CNN “legal affairs expert” made it sound normal and said Clinton had fired all the US Attorneys. His comments were not even questioned by Cooper and he never noted that this was at the start of Clinton’s first term and intentionally left the impression that it was very similar to what Bush, et al, are doing now. Additionally, the fact that Bush’s political friends, hacks and fops are being given these jobs (’way to go, Brownie’) without benefit of Congressional oversight (because of provisions in the Patriot Act), wasn’t even discussed! The soft machine continues its work unabated and, apparently, unhindered…..
March 14th, 2007 at 4:11 pm“Whose morals? removebush, yours?
Comment by Flaco — March 14, 2007 @ 4:07 pm”
HA HA HA!!!
At this point a rock has more morals than the Republican party.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:12 pmJake sez:
Bullshit. There’s plenty of evidence to make the case that these firings were politically motivated. If you claim not to be aware of this, you’re either poisonously disingenuous or terminally stupid…either way, there’s no point in discussing the issue further with you.
I’m not disputing the point that politically motivated dismissals of U.S. attorneys may have occurred in the past…it’s a good bet that they have. That’s why the check of the Senate confirmation is so important here. With that check in place, a President can dismiss as many U.S. attorneys as he likes, for any reason (as is his right), but the replacements he appoints will be vetted by another, coequal branch of the government.
With this check missing, as it is now, the President can appoint whoever he likes without the bother of Senate confirmation, placing a disproportionate amount of power in the Executive branch. If he does it merely to advance the partisan political agenda of his own administration and party, it is an abuse of power…an abuse for which this administration must be held accountable.
If you wish to debate the above, I welcome your viewpoint. But if you persist is claiming that the recent firings weren’t politically motivated (despite the abundant evidence to the contrary), and claim that Chimpy only dismissed those attorneys as part of the great War Of^Hn Terror â„¢, there’s no reason to continue with you.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:12 pm“Does the six-time Democratic Rep. from Philadelphia, Joshua Eilberg, qualify?”
does he qualify to come with us in our ride in my time machine? sure, why not! p.s.–after we’re done with carter, i think we should stop in the ’50s to get the dulles brothers not to overthrow a democratic iran.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:12 pmWow. The trolls are in quite the frenzy.
Poor dears….
March 14th, 2007 at 4:14 pmOh, so you just want more recent firings, in groups only? I will be back with the list of U.S. Attorneys Clinton fired who were looking into Rostenkowski and Whitewater, etc.
Comment by Jake
2 wrongs make a right! Altogether now!
2 wrongs make a right! Altogether now!
2 wrongs make a right! Altogether now!
2 wrongs make a right! Altogether now!
2 wrongs make a right! Altogether now!
2 wrongs make a right! Altogether now!
2 wrongs make a right! Altogether now!
2 wrongs make a right! Altogether now!
2 wrongs make a right! Altogether now!
2 wrongs make a right! Altogether now!
March 14th, 2007 at 4:14 pmLooks like the nearly complete troll call.
Jakers, Patsie, R2DumbToo, Flaccido, Tracy, just missing Exley and Seixon now.
We know we’ve hit the nerve when this flock is unleashed.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:16 pmJake, Roger, and Flaco aren’t enough to shore up the bursting dike of Rethuglican talking points, so their field commander has thrown Tracy into the fray
March 14th, 2007 at 4:17 pmI for one am sick of all of the pop-ups and Flash ads on ThinkProgress. They get in the way when I am trying to swat the trolls.
Oh wait, there isn’t any ads here, only a little “Donate” button.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:18 pmthey’re not trolls, they’re ‘independents’.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:18 pmSay it with me now:
Roger Roger = Moron Moron
March 14th, 2007 at 4:18 pmLooks like the nearly complete troll call.
Jakers, Patsie, R2DumbToo, Flaccido, Tracy, just missing Exley and Seixon now.
We know we’ve hit the nerve when this flock is unleashed.
Comment by RUCerious
That’s because the GOP Operative know damned well they have to stop the hemorrhaging before this boils over into a full blown OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE investigation.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:19 pmLooks like the nearly complete troll call.
Comment by RUCerious — March 14, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
I didn’t mention Patrick in my troll call, but he really isn’t a full blown troll. He is more like an electronic drum machine than a live member of the band.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:19 pmJPV:
I’m simply answering the question and trying to get YOUR side to commit to one or the other:
a) It was wrong when Clinton did it
b) It was not wrong when Clinton did it.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:19 pmJPV
Say it again, loud enough for Jakers, Patsie and the other trolls to froth over.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
March 14th, 2007 at 4:21 pmWe know we’ve hit the nerve when this flock is unleashed.
Comment by RUCerious
They just can’t handle it when their god (Chimpy) is caught in a LIE. Or when he’s exposed as a LIAR.
Somebody give Chimpy a blowjob, so we can get rid of this LIAR.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:21 pm“RemoveBush:
Oh, so you just want more recent firings, in groups only? I will be back with the list of U.S. Attorneys Clinton fired who were looking into Rostenkowski and Whitewater, etc.
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 4:09 pm”
Rostenkowski was part of the purge of the 93, or initial purge EVERY president does when they come into office. If it was not for a complete house cleaning, I would have problems with this and if it was not the beginning of Clintons term.
I guess you just don’t see the difference?????? If Clinton had brought in his people and then fired a lot of them, that had no performance issues, I would have a problem with that as well. However, you see that DID NOT HAPPEN!!!!
You may try and spin this all you want, but let’s keep apples and apples, not apples and basketballs.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:22 pmJPV (and now RUCerious):
How exactly can following the law be “obstruction of justice”?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:23 pm#174-Jake,
You support terrorism. You call for the murder of innocent American civilians. And your response is that it’s fine with you until you get tried for “treason”.
Wow. And you wonder why no one listens to you? Here’s a suggestion, try Arabic.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:24 pmComment by Patrick1 — March 14, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 14, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Comment by Flaco — March 14, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Comment by Tracy — March 14, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
I have never seen a clearer sign that this administration is going down than the troll frenzy I am witnessing on this thread.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:24 pmThe Republicans are so used to their own corruption and underhanded politics that they have come to believe that everyone does it. “Everyone” to them = Republicans.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:24 pmJake,
March 14th, 2007 at 4:25 pmJust to clarify – One example, Kendall Coffey is dismissed in the text, but included in the chart. He resigned because he had bitten a topless dancer in the arm – hardly the epitome of legal expertise. If WJC had retainede him, that would have been a real grounds for impeachment. Fortunately, Kendall resigned in order to avoid further disgrace.
how bout “It was wrong when Clinton snuck a provision in the Patriot Act to get around the senate confirmation.” still being an apologist for the derailing of carol lam’s cunningham investigation?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:26 pmU.S. attorneys serve to pleasure the president?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:26 pmLOL RemoveBush — read that post again, why don’t ya? Firing 8 for political reasons is WRONG (but as long as you fire all 93 for political reasons at the start of your term, that is just fine)! Let’s call it “one free shot” during the honeymoon — good thing rapists and murderers don’t get the same treatment, huh?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:27 pmvk
March 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pmHe is more like an electronic drum machine than a live member of the band.
roflmao~
JPV (and now RUCerious):
How exactly can following the law be “obstruction of justice�
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Funny, that’s what Clinton said. He *followed the law* and used the definition of *sex* that was given to him – yet they charged him with “Obstruction of Justice”. Ah, the *irony* of that is just too funny!
You know Jake, you look even more st*pid that Rove does on this one!
March 14th, 2007 at 4:29 pmTuber:
I was referring to the editors and reporters who are guilty of treason. I’ll try to type s l o w e r for you next time.
WaltTheMan:
Maybe Clinton set him up with one of his bimbos?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:29 pmYES, CHIMPya, AND SO ARE YOUR 1000+ ILLEGAL SIGNING STATEMENTS, YOUR LUDICROUS CRIMINAL INTERPRETATION OF THE POWERS OF YOUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH AS THOSE OF AN “UNITARY”(READ LOONEY-TURDY)EXECUTIVE, YOUR FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF HUMAN RIGHTS, YOUR FLAUNTING OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION, HABEAS CORPUS AND THE RULE OF LAW OF THE LAND–ALL THIS AND MORE YOU CALL “a customary practice by presidents”–CUT THE CRAP AND BULLSHIT, Bush, YOU MOTHER-F*CKING PIECE OF HYENA-SHIT, LYING SACK OF SHIT, MASS-MURDERING WAR CRIMINAL AND HE WHO SHALL BE IMPEACHED, CONVICTED, SENTENCED AND EXECUTED ALONG WITH Cheney, Rove, Rice, Gonzales, Dumbsfailed, WolfFARTwhizz, Perle, Feith, Addington, Yoo, Snow, all of Bushland Uber Allies FOR YA HIGH CRIMES AGAINST AMERICA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD!!!!!
March 14th, 2007 at 4:30 pmBush sadly has the same complex as Nixon did. He sees enemies everywhere. Not just adversaries, people to disagree with, but true enemies. When you are of this mindset, then you feel justified in enforcing and punishing at will, ethics and laws be damned.
No matter how many Bushies show up here to vent along with Jihadist Jake, the problem is not going to go away. It will be newsworthy today, tomorrow, and next week, and so on… (I can’t begin to tell you how pleased this makes me.)
The fact that republicans are now tripping over their own scapegoats, well that’s gotta hurt! ;) And it makes for a very powerful progressive message.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:30 pmLOL RemoveBush — read that post again, why don’t ya? Firing 8 for political reasons is WRONG (but as long as you fire all 93 for political reasons at the start of your term, that is just fine)! Let’s call it “one free shot†during the honeymoon — good thing rapists and murderers don’t get the same treatment, huh? Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
LOL! Is that your argument? That *argument* is as st*pid as you are.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:31 pm“U.S. attorneys serve to pleasure the president?”
duh. why do you think rove wanted to make griffin a.g.?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pmJakers,
To quote a recent TP article..
“…
Just last month, a top Justice Department official told Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in a letter that the “Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint [Rove ally Tim] Griffin†as U.S. Attorney in Arkansas.
Now the White House acknowledges that Rove “served as a conduit for complaints about federal prosecutors.â€
In emails released yesterday, former Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson writes, “I know that getting [Griffen] appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.†When a GOP chairman in New Mexico complained about a U.S. Attorney, Rove reportedly told him, “He’s gone.â€
And news reports indicate that Rove’s office may have been involved in problems involving the U.S. Attorney from Washington state, John McKay.”…
When an administration “official” is involved in retaliation/firing of a U.S. Attorney, based solely on the unwillingness of said attorney to bring charges based on a political agenda, I’d call that obstruction of justice, now wouldn’t U?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pm“LOL RemoveBush — read that post again, why don’t ya? Firing 8 for political reasons is WRONG (but as long as you fire all 93 for political reasons at the start of your term, that is just fine)! Let’s call it “one free shot†during the honeymoon — good thing rapists and murderers don’t get the same treatment, huh?
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 4:27 pm”
Jake…… They are only put in place for 4 year terms…… So let’s do the math…….
A president is only in office for how long???? All together here…… 4 years. So then if a president is only serving one term, the next president has EVERY RIGHT to dismiss the previous attorney’s and install new ones. Since the LAW states that they hold office for FOUR YEARS then everything is LEGAL to dismiss them when the NEW president enters office if he wishes…….
Your not the brightest bulb in the box are you?
Please tell me your not an accountant? If so god help the company you work for.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pmEver notice that when you get close to an ant’s nest the drones get excited and swarm to defend their maggot queen?
Seems that the mindless drone trolls are swarming today, ever ready to defend their Queen George from the invasion of truth.
It’s a good thing they are neutered so they can’t reproduce.
Quite a collection of ball-less freaks they are, competing to see which one gets the smag from the Queen today.
My money’s on Patsy1, but Flacaputo is putting up some nasty scratches.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:34 pmVerbalKint:
Anything in particular you want to ask me about my post @ 4:19 pm?
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
That was more about getting others to lie for him. And, as I am sure you recall, Clinton only *followed the law* as to that definition IF you believe Monica was lying about him touching and kissing her breasts, buttocks, and manually stimulating her clitoris to orgasm.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:35 pm#198 VerbalKint
I have never seen a clearer sign that this administration is going down than the troll frenzy I am witnessing on this thread.
It’s a full-blown panic. The trolls aren’t posting like this because they think they’re right. It’s because they’re afraid they’re wrong. And they can see what’s coming down the pike.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:36 pm“Maybe Clinton set him up with one of his bimbos?”
there it is!! and to think, i was beginning to believe you are an independent and your posts on clinton were impartial and possibly fact-based. but then the classy (and very, very clever) comments show up.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:36 pmJake,
March 14th, 2007 at 4:38 pmJust to further clarify – Another example, Larry Herbert Colleton is dismissed in the text, but included in the chart. He resigned because he was caught on tape trying to strangle a Jacksonville, FL TV reporter – hardly the epitome of legal expertise. If WJC had retained him, that would have been a real grounds for impeachment. Fortunately, Larry resigned in order to avoid further personal disgrace.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
That was RemoveBush’s argument, not mine.
RemoveBush:
Not only does the next President have EVERY RIGHT to dismiss the previous attorney’s and install new ones, so does the CURRENT President. Get it?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:39 pmbush is looking to the grand political traditions of Mexico to help him better understand how democracy works. “Let’s see Felipe, you all got graft, corruption, payoffs. I think we could use some of that back up north.”
March 14th, 2007 at 4:41 pm#198
I have never seen a clearer sign that this administration is going down than the troll frenzy I am witnessing on this thread.
Comment by VerbalKint
Dude get a grip. No one is going down, it is not Doomsday asshat!
March 14th, 2007 at 4:41 pmGo eat lunch already.
Why is this thread still on here? Think Progress’ lies have been proven overwhelmingly. If after Clinton and your support for Islamo Fascism I will understand that you have no honor left to admit that you are wrong.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:42 pmpgw:
Independents consider ALL possibilities before rendering judgment.
WaltTheMan:
And, as I pointed out above, McKay refused to convene a grand jury to look into voter fraud allegations in the 2004 Washington governor’s race — hardly the epitome of legal expertise (although I don’t know if Bush had retained him, that would have been a real grounds for impeachment ; )
March 14th, 2007 at 4:42 pmDude get a grip. No one is going down, it is not Doomsday asshat!
Go eat lunch already.
Comment by Flaco — March 14, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
If you’re going to quote Scooter Libby, you should provide the proper citations.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:43 pmIt’s a full-blown panic. The trolls aren’t posting like this because they think they’re right. It’s because they’re afraid they’re wrong. And they can see what’s coming down the pike.
Comment by chimpeach — March 14, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Excellent characterization.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:46 pm“RemoveBush:
Not only does the next President have EVERY RIGHT to dismiss the previous attorney’s and install new ones, so does the CURRENT President. Get it?
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 4:39 pm”
Not for political reasons or in the middle of a term……
DON”T YOU GET IT?????
I guess that when you can’t win an election, or anything else, legally you rig the situation anyway you can and call it “Legal”?????
Posted in #18:
The 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).
March 14th, 2007 at 4:47 pmAccordingly, 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.
Doomday?
No, no, you misunderstand. It’s wonderful news. Just when I think the news can’t get any better for the nation (i.e. worse for Bushies), it somehow does.
Again, keep in mind that what is driving this story and what will keep it in the news for a loooooong time to come, is the fact that the republicans got caught playing rough w/ their own little stormtroopers. Can you tell that even my fingers smile when I type this?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:47 pmThe President of The United States is a lying piece of shit.
A psychopath too.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:49 pm#203 Joke
Firing 8 for political reasons is WRONG (but as long as you fire all 93 for political reasons at the start of your term, that is just fine)!
It depends on what you mean by “for political reasons”.
If “for political reasons” mean wanting to have people in place who are less likely to work against you in some undefined circumstance, that’s pretty normal.
If “for political reasons” mean doing so in order to disrupt or derail an ongoing federal corruption investigation because it’s taking down members of your party and it’s starting to get a little too close for comfort, that’s not okay. That’s arguably obstruction.
If “for political reasons” mean because someone isn’t vigorously pursuing a case against an opposing political candidate such that an indictment might be served to said candidate right before an election, that’s not okay. I’m sure you can’t understand why it’s not okay. Just take my word for it.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:50 pmMandolin has already had to chew down a huge serving of crow after brashly predicting that Rove wasn’t involved in the firings.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:51 pm“Independents consider ALL possibilities before rendering judgment.”
then how come all your posts seem like they’re taken straight from the Wall Street Journal?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:53 pmJake,
March 14th, 2007 at 4:54 pmJust to further clarify – Two of the US Attorneys to lose their positions were appointed to Federal Judgeships: Vicki Lynn Miles-LaGrange and Edmond A. Sargus, Jr were appointed to federal judgeships. Those are lifetime positions. Now, I only have two more to research, but two is certainly less then eight.
I’m hearing a lot of noise from Jake, but he’s eerily silent regarding my post #181.
Thanks, Jake, for confirming that your purpose here is not to discuss, but to derail discussion.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:55 pmRemoveBush:
Not for political reasons or in the middle of a term…
How about in leap years?
chimpeach:
It depends on what you mean by “for political reasonsâ€.
So, you thought Clinton removing the U.S. Attorneys looking into Rostenkowski and Whitewater was “arguably obstruction”?! Well, at least I’ve never heard that one before. I’ll have to think about it and get back to you.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pm“It’s a full-blown panic.” How true. The wingnuts are shittin’ and gittin’ because they realize they are in big trouble on this one.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pmpgw:
Well, I did read the WSJ editorial this morning ; )
Walt:
I already postulated those who got promoted my have known where the bodies were buried . . .
March 14th, 2007 at 4:57 pmWhy is this thread still on here? Think Progress’ lies have been proven overwhelmingly. If after Clinton and your support for Islamo Fascism I will understand that you have no honor left to admit that you are wrong. Comment by Patrick1 — March 14, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Was that a Freudian slip PatrickZero? That ThinkProgress’ *lies* have been *proven*? Proven means *true*, dum bass! You’re so cutely st*pid!!! You remind me of North Eastern Dilemma! Now that was a st*pid little twit!
Clinton Supporting Islamo-Fascism? You mean like in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? No that is Bush the Junior. Do you mean like Al Qaeda and the Taliban and Saddam? No that’s Bush the Junior (Taliban Before 911) and Bush the Senior and Ronuld Raygun’s support of them to *fight-the-commies*!
You Sickos loved the Islamofascists as long as they were supplying the CIA with drugs, and fighting the Commies.
You and your Whiny Wacko Rightie Nutjob friends made this bed we all must lie in – you fcuking st*pid idiot!
March 14th, 2007 at 4:57 pm“And, as I pointed out above, McKay refused to convene a grand jury to look into voter fraud allegations in the 2004 Washington governor’s race — hardly the epitome of legal expertise (although I don’t know if Bush had retained him, that would have been a real grounds for impeachment ; )
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 4:42 pm”
And as I pointed out……. He did NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE to push the issue to a grand jury. Nothing but a bunch of Republicans claiming voter fraud. No evidence only those that were going to lose power were crying. If there was EVIDENCE as I stated in my previous post…… Provide it!!!!!
I have yet to see you provide ANY evidence to counter the Attorney’s claim that there was no evidence to pursue the matter.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:57 pmhere’s something that will make the independents happy:
“Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans and 298 involved Democrats.”
only 10. go independents!!
March 14th, 2007 at 4:57 pmJake,
March 14th, 2007 at 4:59 pmThe two sex-crazed US Attorneys were popped up by Jeb, W’s brother.
And, as I pointed out above, McKay refused to convene a grand jury to look into voter fraud allegations in the 2004 Washington governor’s race — hardly the epitome of legal expertise (although I don’t know if Bush had retained him, that would have been a real grounds for impeachment ; ) Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
You mean they refused to help *throw* the election in Washington, the way the GOP, Judges and Election officials did in Ohio?
Sounds like they should receive a medal for standing up to you vicious lying stealing crooks!
March 14th, 2007 at 5:00 pmOh, I’m sorry TripMaster, I thought you had already concluded I was “either poisonously disingenuous or terminally stupid…either way, there’s no point in discussing the issue further with you.”
I didn’t know that meant the exact opposite and that you actually wanted to discuss the issue further with me. Welcome back.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:00 pm“RemoveBush:
Not for political reasons or in the middle of a term…
How about in leap years?
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 4:56 pm”
Don’t know….. That’s a matter for the courts….. I have to imagine that this is figured into the law, but I could be wrong.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:01 pmLOL….The fear of the reich winger’s is amazing today…This is almost as much fun as we had a few night’s ago with out them…..Bet rover or gonzo said they would get bonus check’s if they did a good job today..
Funny thing is all the report’’s on CNN and every where else is that bull shit and the repug’s have lost a lot of their base and indeed many are saying they have buyer’s remorse so to speak for even voting for bush….Add to that the poll’s are shifting in their responses of who they think will “definately win in 2008″..And all polled thought the Dem’s would…This explain’s the fear factor we are seeing today…..LOL……Blessings, We are doing great, now we need to impeach and win the war…
March 14th, 2007 at 5:02 pmHang in there, Jake, only an hour to go before your shift is over.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:05 pmJPV (and now RUCerious):
How exactly can following the law be “obstruction of justice�
Comment by Jake
DUH!!!
By removing Attorneys that are uncovering illegal activity by the administration.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:05 pmOBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
March 14th, 2007 at 5:07 pm“LOL RemoveBush — read that post again, why don’t ya? Firing 8 for political reasons is WRONG (but as long as you fire all 93 for political reasons at the start of your term, that is just fine)! Let’s call it “one free shot†during the honeymoon — good thing rapists and murderers don’t get the same treatment, huh?
Comment by Jake
LOL.
What about the 80 Attorneys that Bush fired at the beginning of his term.
LOL.
Try again.
LOL.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:11 pm#233 Joke
So, you thought Clinton removing the U.S. Attorneys looking into Rostenkowski and Whitewater was “arguably obstruction�! Well, at least I’ve never heard that one before. I’ll have to think about it and get back to you.
I’m not talking about Clinton. This is about the Bush White House, Bush’s Attorney General, and Bush’s DoJ. You’re the one who has the Clinton fixation and can’t seem to focus on the topic at hand. Maybe you’d like to try your hand at explaining why the DoJ needed to slip the provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization that would let them bypass Senate confirmation. Good luck using the “But Clinton..” dodge on that one.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:13 pmSharon:
I doubt Hillary wins if she’s the nominee or there is another 9/11 type attack.
VerbalKint:
It will be off and on for the evening. Thanks for your concern though.
JPV:
Well, now that you’ve seconded chimpeach’s motion deeming Clinton’s removal of the U.S. Attorneys looking into Rostenkowski and Whitewater as “arguably obstruction†we will have to hold a full hearing on the matter. Should I call for a quorum or are you ready to go for it?
March 14th, 2007 at 5:17 pm“Sununu calls for Gonzales’ dismissal”
uh oh. clinton somehow got to sununu. damn it.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:17 pmWAAAAHHH!!!
MOMMY! MOMMY!
It’s not fair Mommy!
Clinton did the same thing Mommy!
Waaaahhh!!!
March 14th, 2007 at 5:17 pmOops — chimpeach has withdrawn the motion — obstructing justice is O.K. if you’re a Democrat. Thanks for the clarification.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:18 pmOops — chimpeach has withdrawn the motion — obstructing justice is O.K. if you’re a Democrat. Thanks for the clarification.
Comment by Jake
WAAAAHHH!!!
MOMMY! MOMMY!
It’s not fair Mommy!
Clinton did the same thing Mommy!
Waaaahhh!!!
March 14th, 2007 at 5:20 pm“obstructing justice is O.K. if you’re a Democrat. Thanks for the clarification.”
which dem is obstructing carol lam’s investigation?
March 14th, 2007 at 5:20 pmJust to be clear JPV:
Any President who removes U.S. Attorneys that are uncovering illegal activity by said Administration is guilty of “obstruction of justice” right?
March 14th, 2007 at 5:22 pmLemme see if I have this straight – as I just arrived:
According to the trolls (who we really aren’t supposed to feed), IF a US attorney is, let’s say for example, investigating a BIG Presidential Donor – it’s hunky dory for that President (who received the big $) to fire that particular US Attorney, because he serves at the President’s pleasure? And the trolls think that’s no harm, no foul?
That’s a load of BS. It’s totally unethical, and illegal (obstruction of justice.) By extention, removing US Attorney’s (or “pushing them out” as the DOJ emails call it) because they investigate Republicans is also unethical and probably illegal.
Legal be damned for a second – doesn’t make anyone queesy that unethical conduct seems to be acceptable in the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE???? or in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH????
March 14th, 2007 at 5:23 pmpgw:
That’s not what I’m saying — I just want to know what this new standard for “obstruction of justice” is for the next time a Democrat gets into the Oval Office.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:24 pmWell, now that you’ve seconded chimpeach’s motion deeming Clinton’s removal of the U.S. Attorneys looking into Rostenkowski and Whitewater as “arguably obstruction†we will have to hold a full hearing on the matter. Should I call for a quorum or are you ready to go for it?
Comment by Jake
Fine by me. I don’t care for Clinton any more than I care for Bush.
I don’t subscribe to either party. Only a fool would think that there is any difference to the two major crime syndicates, errr, I meant parties.
So yeah, as long as you go after Bush too, help yourself to Clinton while you’re at it.
That would suit me just fine.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:24 pmdid someone say ‘obstructing’?
“Last Thursday, the administration abruptly dropped its opposition to a bill that would require Senate confirmation for U.S. attorney replacements. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) ’still intends to object,’ Roll Call reports”
March 14th, 2007 at 5:25 pmAny President who removes U.S. Attorneys that are uncovering illegal activity by said Administration is guilty of “obstruction of justice†right?
Comment by Jake
LOL… Fine by me. Like I said, I hate Democrats and Republicans equally.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:25 pmLegal be damned for a second – doesn’t make anyone queesy that unethical conduct seems to be acceptable in the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE???? or in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH????
Comment by detepe
No surprise there. The US Government, just like any big business, is merely a crime syndicate for the rich elite.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:27 pm#252 Joke
Oops — chimpeach has withdrawn the motion — obstructing justice is O.K. if you’re a Democrat. Thanks for the clarification.
You just go ahead and have that argument with yourself and let us know when you’re done.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:27 pmOBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
If there was even a hint that Clinton’s firing of USAs at the beginning of his term in office was an obstruction of justice, then we ALL know that the Republican hunters would have pounced all over it. I don’t recall anyone from the Clinton administration being accused of calling and pressuring on-going investigations. (Wait, I thought BushCo didn’t comment on those pesky on-going investigations. Oh, only when it suits their protection and agenda)
March 14th, 2007 at 5:28 pmdetepe ~ You’ll be needin your extra thick waders here today.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:29 pmThe troll shit is so deep I’m usin scuba gear to breathe.
Jake,
March 14th, 2007 at 5:31 pmFirst, to further clarify – Justin “Pete” Preston Strom, Jr. rejoined the private sector because the government did not pay the millions that he was accustomed to. Read about him here. Now, we are down to one weith WJC. W is still at 27, and none have been discounted.
No surprise there. The US Government, just like any big business, is merely a crime syndicate for the rich elite.
Comment by JPV
Right on!
March 14th, 2007 at 5:31 pmBTW, you can change US for any other country name and the statement holds the same meaning.
While the Joke is having his imaginary argument with an imaginary version of me, isn’t it interesting how these trolls have been pining for the good ol’ days of the Clinton administration? It’s as if their heads all got stuck in 2000 and they haven’t budged since. I guess if I were a right-winger (or a right-winger who wants people to call him an “independent”), I wouldn’t want to talk about Bush either.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:33 pmSorry, weith s/b with in post 265. I get new glasses tommorrow.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pmdetepe ~ You’ll be needin your extra thick waders here today.
The troll shit is so deep I’m usin scuba gear to breathe.
Comment by RUCerious
I take it as a good sign.
It’s a very clear indication that their GOP “Handlers” have sent them out with strict talking points in order to try (feebly I might add) and contain what will obviously bloom into full-blown OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE hearings very soon.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:35 pmBTW, you can change US for any other country name and the statement holds the same meaning.
Comment by Juan C
True.
Unfortunately it’s the nature of of what power, money and insecurity does to people.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:36 pmpgw 259 -
About Kyl… I tried to figure out what his motivation might be and all I could find was that he wanted amendments allowed on the bill – three or four if I remember correctly. Why amendments are needed to reverse a stupidly executed provision (inserted in a bill where it had no business in the first place…), I have no idea.
Also, although 120 days had been the time limit for installing a replacement, now the DOJ says that might not be long enough. (Maybe that’s because everytime something is introduced before the Senate, McConnell or Kyl or some other doof puts a hold on it – just to prove they can. They have no interest in governing, just pulling asinine power plays…. Oops, got off on a rant…
Anyway, Kyl’s just being difficult because he can.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:37 pm#14 RR I don’t have the time nor the inclination to read this whole thread to see how thoroughly you got trashed for your comments in #14. However I do agree with you to an extent. Yes the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Yes presidents replace all or nearly all of the US attorneys at the BEGINNING of their terms and occasionally replace some at the beginning of the second term if they serve a second term. Historically most of those replaced at the start of the second term have been those who left to pursue other interests. However what is unusual is that these firings appear to be politically motivated. Politicizing the legal system is where the problem is, this president is currently once again setting a new precedent and it is once again not a good precedent. If the president (and when his staff acts on his behalf it is acting as his voice) did order the firings for political reasons, and all signs currently point in that direction, then this guys is proving once again that party comes before country. Remember this too that not one single fired attorney was anyone other than a Bush appointee to begin with, because at the beginning of his first term all then sitting attorney’s were fired and replaced with his appointees. Now that those appointees are not putting party ahead of law they are getting axed.
Oh, and the “but Clinton did it too” argument does not hold water. Clinton Like Bush and Reagan before him appointed all new attorney’s at the start of his first term. The guy prosecuting Rostenkowski got replaced as a matter of common procedure AND rosty still got convicted. Also the mid term losses (20 seems to be the figure republicans are focusing on) are due mainly to attorney’s leaving their positions voluntarily with one actually being asked to leave. So you might look for a different fact pattern for this angle.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:38 pmThe troll shit is so deep I’m usin scuba gear to breathe.
Comment by RUCerious
Amen to that honey! Are these Rove’s minions from gwb.com or something? The arguments are certainly repetitive enough – and ol’ TurdBlossom loves talking points…
March 14th, 2007 at 5:41 pmAmen to that honey! Are these Rove’s minions from gwb.com or something? The arguments are certainly repetitive enough – and ol’ TurdBlossom loves talking points…
Comment by detepe
The water carries are in a huge panic over this one.
The more hysterical their rhetoric the more one has to think that it has the potential to blowup into a real huge OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE fiasco for the Bushies.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
March 14th, 2007 at 5:52 pm#194
Somebody give Chimpy a blowjob, so we can get rid of this LIAR.
Comment by Zooey
You volunteering right!
March 14th, 2007 at 5:53 pmHow about some education for the lost left.
The law:
3-2.120 Appointment United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).
March 14th, 2007 at 5:56 pmPatrick1
Are you a slow learner or opposition. Pick one.
March 14th, 2007 at 6:00 pmJake sez:
Selective reading…a hallmark of the neocon troll.
Let’s revisit that fragment in context, shall we?
See the qualifier above (boldfaced for your convenience)? Or are you indeed attempting to put forward the ridiculous claim that these firings weren’t politically motivated?
Again, selective reading. Too bad you couldn’t be bothered to read the entire comment, or else you would have seen the following:
Your subsequent silence speaks volumes, Jake.
I never left…but you were never really here to begin with, were you?
March 14th, 2007 at 6:02 pm“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?”
So were the 93 that Bush fired. They were all qualified and did not have poor job performance.
It is a tradition that whatever political party is in office gets rid of all of the former party’s people (wherein it is within their purvue and legal). How many presidents keep all the “qualified” staff that was left over from the previous administration?
What Clinton did not do was to try to fire US Attorneys who weren’t doing his bidding.
To the trolls…Here’s a simple question I’m sure you can answer:
Who does the Attorney General and all the US Attorneys work for? This is not who hires them, it is who do they work for?
March 14th, 2007 at 6:04 pm#198
You guys have been saying that for over six years now. It’s getting old.
March 14th, 2007 at 6:08 pmPatrick1
I admire you for trying to educate TPers here. Not many will listen.
March 14th, 2007 at 6:11 pm#205
But he was convicted and impeached for perjury. Now that’s really funny!
March 14th, 2007 at 6:13 pmRight on Tracy
When are their constituents going to stop the war?
March 14th, 2007 at 6:15 pmNever because they TPers are a fringe group.
#225
“Not for political reasons or in the middle of a term……”
Who said that was the law? Clinton fired the USAs for political reasons. The “in the middle of a term” is a BS cliche that was made up by other administrations.
March 14th, 2007 at 6:17 pm#283
We do want the war to stop….as soon as the Iraqis can handle their own security situation.
March 14th, 2007 at 6:25 pmComment by Sharon #243
Sharon,
…the CURSE…
…is working…
March 14th, 2007 at 6:35 pm#273 Are these Rove’s minions from gwb.com or something?
March 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pmMore likely from DumbassesRWe
I agree that Bush shouldn’t have done it just like Clinton shouldn’t have done it. The USAs serve the people and the Constitution, but this whole argument by TP and other liberals that Bush shouldn’t have done it because Clinton didn’t do it is a BS.
Comment by Tracy
So what’s your point? If it’s wrong, it’s wrong whether Bush did it, or Clinton did it, or Teddy Roosevelt did it. For Christ’s sake, Tracy, can you ever get over bringing up Clinton’s transgressions almost every time you post? He hasn’t been president for over six years, and two wrongs don’t make a right.
March 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pmJake,
March 14th, 2007 at 6:50 pmI cannot find the dirt on Kent Barron Alexander yet. It looks like he disappeared into oblivion shortly after entering the private sector. Perhaps he entered too many privates. Unless someone is wiling to invest $29.95, we will never know.
Shorter Republican Trolls: “The Pwesident is telling the twuth because I said so.” (stomp right foot), Think Pwogwess is lying because I said so. (stomp left foot, turn red in the face, stomp both feet over and over again) “So there!”
March 14th, 2007 at 6:57 pmIn my 289. wiling s/b willing.
March 14th, 2007 at 6:58 pmYou volunteering right!
Comment by Flaco
As soon as you get out of my way, dear.
March 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pmWTF is that supposed to mean?
I was reading on another site that after Reno was appointed as AG she gave the Bush USAttys an opportunity to resign and be assessed to remain in their positions. Some did not, so some got replaced.
Also this most recent move by the AG’s office and Bush Admin is unprecedented. That means, you a$$, that it can not be a cliche’ since it has never happened before. That being the case it could not have been made up by other admininstrations.
Please try to be a better prepared troll.
March 14th, 2007 at 7:07 pm#225 actually the president can remove them even for political reasons and even mid term. This is typically not done for two reasons…1) they were all appointed for politcal reasons and 2) firing for political reasons and getting caught doing so is political suicide. Historically what is occuring under the Bush adminsitration is a first.
As to the obstruction of justice or manipulation of justice, even if these are not proven causes for dismissal, even theappearance of this being the case is a very bad thing for our justice system as the politcal appointees are still supposed to uphold the law first and formost. Once that appointment is made party affiliation should take a back seat tot he law and properly executing the law.
March 14th, 2007 at 7:20 pm[...] poor work performance [questionable assertion given purportedly good performance evaluations], it’s no big deal as Presidents do it all the time, and now this- that it was political payback for certain prosecutions that were too aggressive in [...]
March 14th, 2007 at 7:22 pmAnother question -
IF this is typical, allowed, legal and not unethical, then why did the AG/DOJ FUBAR it? The Shrub is saying “Mistakes were made”, and there’s talk that someone lied to Congress.
Are Gonzo and his peeps THAT incompetent? Maybe the Prez shouldn’t be so pleasured with them and they should get “pushed out” too….
I’m just sayin’………………………..
March 14th, 2007 at 7:25 pmWho said that was the law? Clinton fired the USAs for political reasons. The “in the middle of a term†is a BS cliche that was made up by other administrations. Comment by Tracy — March 14, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
What’s BS is your excuse – KKKoolaid Sucker! Where are you from Texas? It takes a big state, to make some as hugely st*pid as you!
March 14th, 2007 at 7:34 pmWe do want the war to stop….as soon as the Iraqis can handle their own security situation.
Comment by Tracy — March 14, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Who you got over there working on it? How long you figure it’s gonna take? You ready to ratchet up your taxes to pay the bill? How will we be able to tell they are ready? Sunni or Shites gonna do the job?
I know that’s a lot of questions, but hurry the heck up – people are dying waiting for your answer.
March 14th, 2007 at 7:39 pmWhere did the stupid trolls go? The last idiot posted at 7:20PM.
March 14th, 2007 at 8:29 pmOK, it looks like the rats left this ship, I’m gone as well!
March 14th, 2007 at 10:54 pmComment by Tracy — March 14, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
What’s BS is your excuse – KKKoolaid Sucker! Where are you from Texas? It takes a big state, to make some as hugely st*pid as you!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
If my memory is correct (and it probably is), Tracy-troll has admitted a couple of times to living in the Dallas area, yes, in Texas. But please don’t knock the entire state: I have some relatives living in Austin (including a former Repub), who definitely do not like this administration. In fact, it’s because Austin tends to be a fairly liberal college town that Tom DeLay got its various voting districts gerrymandered onto more conservative ones in the suburbs.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:26 am#225 Comment by RemoveBush — March 14, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
March 15th, 2007 at 12:36 amGlad to be of assistance.
Sorry about the typos!!
RV
[...] troubling.As to the "Clinton did it too" argument – McClatchy ran an article stating that it is customary for an Administration to "clean house" at the start of their term, as Clin… Furthermore, knowing that several of those attorneys were sniffing in areas that could have [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 8:56 amPolitical firings were par for the Clinton course
Posted Wednesday afternoon, March 14 OC Register
I read with incredulity the Associated Press in-depth story, “Gonzales under fire” [Front Page, March 14]: a story about the outrage of both Democrats and spaghetti-spined Republicans at the Bush administration’s justice department firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
Also featured is a picture of semicompetent Sen. Dianne Feinstein, smiling, and comments from both Feinstein and the totally incompetent Sen. Barbara Boxer. Where were these two and where was the Associated Press in 1993 when Bill Clinton’s Justice Department headed by Janet Reno demanded the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys and their removal within 10 days? Did our illustrious senators call for the resignation of Reno? I don’t think so. Did the oh-so unbiased Associated Press print an in-depth story about Reno Under Fire? I think not.
These people who practice selective amnesia and revisionist history now say that the current firings are politically motivated. What about Clinton’s firing of the U.S. attorney Jay B. Stephens, who was investigating Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., a Clinton crony? Rostenkowski was later convicted of mail fraud and pardoned by Bill Clinton. Another replaced prosecutor was investigating Whitewater and was replaced with a Clinton crony. All of these people, including the AP reporter on this story, would make the old Soviet Pravda proud. Shame on the Republicans for not fighting back. Shame on Sens. Feinstein and Boxer, shame on the AP, and shame on the Register.
Steve Dufau
Right on Steve – these TPers has amnesia or selective memory.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:02 pmTP is the new Soviet Pravda
March 15th, 2007 at 12:03 pm[...] Rove repeated the false ‘Clinton did it too’ line several times, concluding: “This to my mind is a lot of politics, and I understand [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 2:34 pm#288
TP brought up what Clinton did and tried to compare it to what Bush did, in one of the most lame ways possible. I am debating the premise of TP’s argument that Clinton didn’t do what Bush did. Please stick to the premise of the debate, so you don’t go off on other tangents.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:55 pm#304
March 15th, 2007 at 5:22 pmTP mentioned that it is common for new presidents to fire prosecutors at the beginning of their term–which is what both Clinton and Bush did. What Clinton didn’t do and Bush did do is fire them at some point into his presidency. That has been explained over and over, but you and the other trolls don’t seem to get it yet, do you?
And I have seen various of your posts, Tracy, and you do have the habit of inserting a complaint about Clinton almost every chance you have. I recall your calling him “bj Clinton” in at least one post. This is a bit off-thread, but if you’re so bothered by Clinton’s bj, why aren’t you bothered by gay hooker Jeff Gannon’s overnights in the WH?
#279
“It is a tradition that whatever political party is in office gets rid of all of the former party’s people (wherein it is within their purvue and legal).”
Why are you so hung up on tradition? Again if they got good job performance reviews from the DOJ why, other that PURE politics, would an incoming administration need to get rid of them?
“How many presidents keep all the “qualified†staff that was left over from the previous administration?”
Staff and USAs are just a little different.
“What Clinton did not do was to try to fire US Attorneys who weren’t doing his bidding. ”
Either Clinton did pay attention or those he appointed were doing his bidding. If he came across one that wasn’t investigating as he saw fit then he would have fired them and he did when one of the USAs, Jay Stephens, was very close to indicting then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. Clinton should have left Stephens there to finish this very important job, but instead fired him along with all of the others in 1993. The fact the Ronstenkowski still was convicted is irrelevant…he should have kept him on to finish his job.
“Who does the Attorney General and all the US Attorneys work for?”
The American people in order to uphold the Constitution. So what does this have to do with “clearing the deck” of qualified people when a new administration enters office?
March 15th, 2007 at 8:04 pm#296
Whatever LITTE man or boy? Whichever.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:06 pm#297
“Who you got over there working on it?”
Various people.
“How long you figure it’s gonna take?”
It depends. Could be a year from now, maybe ten years from now.
“You ready to ratchet up your taxes to pay the bill?”
No problem but I don’t think you need to as much as you think. Make cuts elsewhere. There are MANY opportunities in the federal budget.
“How will we be able to tell they are ready?”
When they can function at a decent level economically and politically.
“Sunni or Shites gonna do the job?”
Both, I hope.
I get the feeling you would have rather those Iraqis just continue to twist in the wind like they did when Sadamm was in control. You are aware that his sons were worse the he was…don’t you? Another 30 years after Saddam was gone and his sons in control would have been alright with you?
March 15th, 2007 at 8:15 pm#300
“In fact, it’s because Austin tends to be a fairly liberal college town…”
Unfortunately, but hey, it’s the capitol…where state government power rests. Liberal love it there.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:18 pmRighties like the comforts of the Spahn Ranch a lot better, right Tracy?
March 15th, 2007 at 8:27 pm#305
“TP mentioned that it is common for new presidents to fire prosecutors at the beginning of their term–which is what both Clinton and Bush did. ”
Who cares if it was common? I don’t agree with it in Clinton’s case OR Bush’s case to “clear the deck”. The law however says that Bush had the legal authority to remove whenever he wants. This tradition of clearing the deck at the beginning of an administrations term is bunk. Clinton clearing out all of the USAs at the beginning of his term WAS purely political as a matter of fact.
“What Clinton didn’t do and Bush did do is fire them at some point into his presidency.”
So what? It’s OK to remove at the beginning of a term but not OK in the middle? You need to get the “timing of the firing” out of your system. The point is that if they are qualified they shouldn’t have to leave untill their 4 year term expires and even then, if they have good reviews, they should continue as long as they want. The USAs serve the American people. Hell judges get to serve for life why not USAs?
March 15th, 2007 at 8:30 pm#310
Not familiar with that one lefty. Please elaborate.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:34 pmYou need to get the “timing of the firing†out of your system. The point is that if they are qualified they shouldn’t have to leave untill their 4 year term expires and even then, if they have good reviews, they should continue as long as they want.
Comment by Tracy
That’s exactly the point: the USAs fired by this administration had good reviews and shouldn’t have been given the boot before their 4-year term expired. I even agree that “they should” be able to “continue as long as they want,” but that isn’t the main issue here and is something for further discussion at another time.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:19 pm#313
“I even agree that “they should†be able to “continue as long as they want,†but that isn’t the main issue here and is something for further discussion at another time.”
Considering the whole stink here is that the USAs were fired midterm is why this whole argument about the timing and motives is total BS. The fact that so many here are trying to defend a BS tradition of clearing the deck when a new administration comes in as being totally appropriate and when another administration breaks from the “norm” they get all irrate about it. Many of the USAs WERE in the middle of their four year terms when Clinton let them go BTW. The only thing I am debating here is TPs lame attempt to justify other administrations actions while piling on others for the SAME thing the previous one did.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:43 amMany of the USAs WERE in the middle of their four year terms when Clinton let them go BTW.
Comment by Tracy —
Can you give any specific names or examples? From what I’ve read so far, Clinton only let them go at the beginning of his term, as did George Bush Sr., BTW. Unless you can provide some specific names/examples, your argument is, to use one of your favorite terms, BS. Also, BTW, “irate” is correctly spelled with only one “r.”
March 16th, 2007 at 11:06 amPs. Your final sentence “The only thing I am debating here is TPs lame attempt to justify other administrations actions while piling on others for the SAME thing the previous one did” really doesn’t make much sense.
“From what I’ve read so far, Clinton only let them go at the beginning of his term,”
Yeah, but some of those USAs were still in their four year term evidenced by the fact that Bush Sr. didn’t fire ALL of the USAs when he entered office. He was in for only four years. Clinton fired ALL of the USAs regardless of whether their terms were up.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784
“At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: “All those people are routinely replaced,” he told reporters, “and I have not done anything differently.” In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.”
Jay Stephens for example was just about to indict Dan Rostenkowski and his term was not up when Reno called for his resignation. There were new USAs brought on board by Bush Sr. in the middle of his term in office which means their terms wouldn’t have expired till after Clinton entered office.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:58 pm#315
“Ps. Your final sentence “The only thing I am debating here is TPs lame attempt to justify other administrations actions while piling on others for the SAME thing the previous one did†really doesn’t make much sense.”
I know you don’t understand why TP’s argument is so lame.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:01 pm#316 and #317
I know you don’t understand why TP’s argument is so lame.
Comment by Tracy
I asked you to produce names of USAs dismissed midterm (ie. not at the beginning of) Clinton’s presidency; you have produced none and are now even bringing up an irrelevant (or in your favorite word, “BS”) argument about what Bush Sr. did. TP has not been talking here about four-year terms that spilled over into the next presidency, and you still don’t get it, do you? Which is why your argument is so lame and pointless.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:28 pmBTW, Rostenkowski, if my memory is correct, nevertheless, spent some time in prison.
Unless you can tell us who the supposedly many USAs fired by Clinton midterm into his presidency (not spillovers from Bush Sr. in 1993) your argument remains a lame and pointless strawman.
[...] appointed U.S. attorneys. As current and former administration officials have confirmed, what Clinton did was standard practice. Bush’s purge, on the other hand, is unprecedented, yet those conservatives — such as [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pm[...] Bush, 3/14/07: U.S. attorneys and others serve at the pleasure of the President. Past administrations have [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pm#319
TPs entire post and argument was pointless and lame evidence by the fact that firing USAs at the beginning of a presidential term is wrong to begin with. So why are you defending the premise of the entire thread? What is your opinion of Clinton firing all of the USAs at the beginning of his term?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pm#326 Tracy
March 19th, 2007 at 5:57 pmThe timing of these firings is the most important point here, but you still don’t get it. Your repeated attempts to bring up what Clinton did at the beginning of his term are beside the point and no longer worthy of discussion here. Don’t expect further replies if all you’re going say is “but Clinton….”
Ps. Tracy,
March 19th, 2007 at 6:19 pmPlease move on to the Carol Lam thread and explain to all of us there why you think making a fuss about the timing of these firings is lame BS.
What is your opinion of Clinton firing all of the USAs at the beginning of his term?
Comment by Tracy
One more BTW or Ps., Clinton didn’t even fire all the USAs when he took office in 1993. From wikipedia:
March 20th, 2007 at 12:55 am“Chertoff was asked to stay in his position when the Clinton administration took office in 1993, at the request of Democratic Senator Bill Bradley; he was the only U.S. attorney not replaced. Chertoff stayed with the U.S. Attorney’s office until 1994, when he entered private practice, returning to Latham & Watkins as a partner.”
Yes, that’s the same Michael Chertoff who currently serves as Director of the Dept of Homeland Security. And, yes, I realize facts seldom are allowed to get in the way of neo-CON talking points.