Congressional Report: Clinton Didn’t Do It Too
Congressional Report: Clinton Didn’t Do It Too
Both President Bush and Karl Rove have argued that the administration’s U.S. Attorney purge is a “normal and ordinary” process that was also carried out by President Clinton. ThinkProgress has spent some time debunking this claim, but the Congressional Research Service has put the nail in the coffin.
A CRS report released yesterday examines the tenure of all U.S. Attorneys who were confirmed by the Senate between the years 1981 and 2006 to determine how many had served — and, of those, how many had been forced to resign for reasons other than a change in administration.
The answer:
– Of the 468 confirmations made by the Senate over the 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration prior to the firings that took place in December.
– In virtually all of those 10 previous cases, serious issues of personal or professional conduct appeared to be the driving issue. Prior to December, for example, only two U.S. Attorneys were outright fired for improper, and in one case criminal, behavior. The CRS report identifies six other U.S. Attorneys who resigned during the 25-year period who were implicated in news reports of “questionable conduct.” For two others, the CRS was unable to determine the cause.
In other words, the Bush administration pushed out almost as many U.S. Attorneys in December as had been let go over the past 25 years.
American Progress fellow Scott Lilly writes on the CRS report:
It is clear that of the four administrations that controlled the executive branch of government during the past quarter-century, only the current administration has held the view that U.S. Attorney can or should be removed absent serious cause. In no instance is there any indication of a removal because a U.S. attorney failed to meet certain political criteria, such as prosecuting cases that were considered too sensitive to partisan issues or failing to prosecute cases that would be helpful from a partisan perspective.
The innovative philosophy of the current Bush administration with respect to the service of U.S. Attorneys is worthy of the attention it is now receiving. Those eight forced resignations threaten the very basis of our justice system — to quote the words written above the pillars on the west front of the Supreme Court, “Equal Justice Under Law.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Vast Left Wing conspiracy excuse from trolls in 3….2…..1
March 20th, 2007 at 2:49 pmThose 8 judges were also known ot be into satanism! Bush knows Clinton put in those satanic judges to support abortion and now the dems are loosing power finally!
March 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pmFacts, facts, facts. Haven’t you weanie liberals got any better talking point than facts?
/sarc off
March 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pmSo, will this finally be enough to put the absurd ‘Clinton did it’ canard to rest, once and for all?
Smart money says no. The trolls didn’t get where they are in life by heeding facts.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pmAnd the Reich wing nuts have what to say about this?? Maybe that Clinton bribed the CRS to skew the data to make it look like he did it?? The possibilities are endless of course.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:52 pmOh, oh. Trolls, quickly. Back to the RNC for some fresh new talking points.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:53 pmJoe Wilson blew his wife’s cover! But she wasn’t really covert!
March 20th, 2007 at 2:54 pmShut up, trolls. You got nothin’.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:55 pm***yawn***
March 20th, 2007 at 2:55 pmWow, I just called you a loony in another thread. I take that back, you are bat sh!t crazy.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:55 pmand there you have it. thanks for all the lies republicans! it’s been fun.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:55 pmThis is another thread that should be troll-proof, but they will show up to trash the place anyway.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:56 pmPer the Report’s own methodology, this is the BARE MINIMUM number fired, and could be UNDERCOUNTING. Why don’t we ask all of Clinton’s officials under oath too?
March 20th, 2007 at 2:57 pmMiers and Rove to testify in private…..BUT not under oath WTF?
March 20th, 2007 at 2:57 pmSo the whole Clinton did it too, even that lame reasoning wasn’t fact. They are even worse than I think. Every time I think Bushies Bunch couldn’t get any worse…Surprise…
March 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pmOh, the Congressional Research Service, what do they know! After all they’re Congressites. You know, not Administrationists.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pmWrong topic for that talking point. You need to sort your RNC talking points by topic. It will be easier for you to copy and paste that way.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pmVery nice spin TP. I like how you throw out “when” the presidents purged attorneys like it matters. Does it matter that some of the US attorney’s purged by Clinton were investigating some of his friends, political appointments, and contributors TP? It shouldn’t as Clinton was still perfectly legal in doing it just like Bush is. While I think this practice is dirty, changing the law is the only way to actually fix this problem. Is congress planning to actually change the law or are they content simply going forward with the political show trial?
March 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pmComment by Jamie Kinstle Wapakoneta OH — March 20, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Wow, I just called you a loony in another thread. I take that back, you are bat sh!t crazy.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — March 20, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Thanks Spudge_Boy I was thinking it must be sarcasm. Wow bat shit crazy - still an understatement I think.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:01 pmOT- I just heard that the White House has offered up Rove and Harriet Miers for UNSWORN testimony BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, in the US Attorney Case. Patrick Leahy (D) says NO. Charles Schumer (D) says Dems will make a counteroffer.
Call Leahy and Schumer and tell them ABSOLUTELY NO DEALS!
Schumer (202) 224-6542
March 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pmLeahy (202) 224-4242
#14 Miers and Rove to testify in private…..BUT not under oath WTF?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pmYou are F*CKING kidding me right?
TP:
Why not LINK to the actual Report? I found it here:
http://www.buzzflash.com/ archives/ 07/ US_attrny_rprt.pdf
“Excluded from these calculations were U.S. Attorneys appointed after a change in presidential administration . . . Although Maurice Ellsworth served less than four years, CRS did not conduct further analysis of this incomplete term because different Presidents made the initial and new appointments . . . Using this methodology, CRS identified 54 instances from 1981 through 2006 in which the tenure of a U.S. Attorney fell short of the four-year term specified by statute (see the appendix). This approach 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 resigned in 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.”
March 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pmVerbalKint:
“Troll-proof”? I simply QUOTED from the CRS Report at issue.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:06 pm– “In virtually all of those 10 previous cases, serious issues of personal or professional conduct appeared to be the driving issue. Prior to December, for example, only two U.S. Attorneys were outright fired for improper, and in one case criminal, behavior. The CRS report identifies six other U.S. Attorneys who resigned during the 25-year period who were implicated in news reports of “questionable conduct.†For two others, the CRS was unable to determine the cause.”
wait, doesn’t this prove that US attorneys have been fired before just like these last 8? wow….thinkprogress.org, what are you smoking?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:08 pmSorry, guys — Rove and Miers for UNSWORN testimony BEHIND CLOSED DOORS only. Take it or leave it.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:08 pmhavent you heard of innocent until proven guilty? Rove didn’t do anything wrong and until you prove it, leave him alone!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:08 pmGot weapons?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:10 pmAgreed. Clinton didn’t defend the United States against Islamo Fascism.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:11 pmFacts, truth and reality seemingly have no place in the current administration. It’s all spin, all the time. Just spin, spin, spin . . . .
March 20th, 2007 at 3:13 pm#18
I totally agree. Whether a U.S. attorney is purged at the time of administration change or when it is happening now is irrelevent. They are both for political gain and are both equally shady, but legal. I don’t really see how anything about the “Clinton did it” argument is being debunked.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:15 pmAgreed. Clinton didn’t defend the United States against Islamo Fascism.
Comment by Patrick1 #27
…but we will against…
…faux Cristo-Bushite fascists…
March 20th, 2007 at 3:16 pmIs there some reason my LINK to the actual CRS Report was deleted? Here it is again:
http://www.buzzflash.com/ archives/ 07/ US_attrny_rprt.pdf
March 20th, 2007 at 3:20 pmTEST.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:22 pmTo every issue, spin, spin, spin
There is no reason, just spin, spin, spin
And no time, to have hearings, not ever.
Da dee dee, dah dah da dee dee, ….
March 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pmHere is the QUOTE again:
“Excluded from these calculations were U.S. attorneys appointed after a change in presidential administration . . . Although Maurice Ellsworth served less than four years, CRS did not conduct further analysis of this incomplete term because different Presidents made the initial and new appointments. This approach 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,
March 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pmand 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 resigned in 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.”
“Very nice spin TP. I like how you throw out “when†the presidents purged attorneys like it matters. Does it matter that some of the US attorney’s purged by Clinton were investigating some of his friends, political appointments, and contributors TP? It shouldn’t as Clinton was still perfectly legal in doing it just like Bush is. While I think this practice is dirty, changing the law is the only way to actually fix this problem. Is congress planning to actually change the law or are they content simply going forward with the political show trial?
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 20, 2007 @ 2:59 pm”
RR you were doing so well before…….
It is NORMAL to fire ALL, or MOST, of the attorney’s when a NEW president takes office. Whether you consider it wrong or not! The attorneys serve for a 4 year term, so the next 4 year term president is well within his right to bring in new personnel if he wishes.
If it is done in the middle, like now, then that raises questions and beggs for legal questions.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pm“Excluded from these calculations were U.S. attorneys appointed after a change in presidential administration . . . Although Maurice Ellsworth served less than four years, CRS did not conduct further analysis of this incomplete term because different Presidents made the initial and new appointments. This approach 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,
March 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pmand 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.”
Leave it.
Subpoena their asses.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:30 pmAs an example from the Clinton Administration, a new U.S. attorney confirmed in 1993 but who resigned in 1996 with no nomination to replace that individual until 1998: “the data collection method utilized by CRS would not have captured the individual who resigned in 1996.”
March 20th, 2007 at 3:30 pmMaybe it is a transmission problem and not some nefarious plot at Think Progress.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pm“Sorry, guys — Rove and Miers for UNSWORN testimony BEHIND CLOSED DOORS only. Take it or leave it.
Comment by Jake — March 20, 2007 @ 3:08 pm”
I say leave it and present them with subpeana’s (SP?) and when they refuse them, take it in front of the Suprem Cout. Then watch the court tell them that they MUST testify!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThose 8 judges were also known ot [sic] be into satanism! Bush knows Clinton put in those satanic judges to support abortion and now the dems are loosing power finally!
Comment by Jamie Kinstle Wapakoneta OH — March 20, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Oh for the love of chocolate, do you even have an active brain cell left? Who let you out of the rubber room?
Now that blinds are being lifted on this treasonous administration, the crazier the right wing talking points become. I have never seen such desperation. I guess if they throw dung long enough, they think something will stick.
Well, it’s quite entertaining to watch the right wing twist in the wind as this whole botched administration falls apart by the hour.
WE THE PEOPLE need to reclaim our government and it looks like we are well on our way to doing that.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pmWow. These are some determined trolls we got goin’ on here. They’re not big on facts, or reason, but they do stick to it.
Um, Jakey… I think you’re citing the incomplete methodology of the previous CRS Report, dated Feb 22, 2007. The story above refers to a NEW report “released yesterday” that examines “all US Attorneys confirmed by the Senate between 1981 and 2006″. That sounds pretty inclusive to me.
But you keep plugging along. I’m sure one of these days the facts will fall in your favor. And when they do, you’ll be there waiting to use them to advance a different, completely inappropriate argument.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pmJake U R stirrng up the moonbats again. Please Stop!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:37 pmHeh
Jake, you are such a loser. Why you continue to lurk around here is beyond my understanding, but at the very least, we can all take hope in the absolute certainty that your time is nearly over. Too bad you wasted your life defending such an ignoble cause, but that was your choice. Now you must face the consequences and that’s not a pretty picture for someone in your situation.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pmRogerxRoger;
Could you please name the USA who were fired by Clinton while they were investigating his friends and which friends of Clinton were being investigated? You have mentioned this several times and I would like to find out more information.
Also I can’t remember where I read it, but I think some USA were not fired while prosecuting a case or investigating a case, even after an Administration change. The new President would wait until the case was finished before appointing a new USA. This was done in order not to impeded justice.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pmSurprise, surpise! Patrick Fitzgerald was identified in January 2005 (when he was in the middle of the Valerie Plame Leak investigation) as one of those “substandard” USAs slated to be canned.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2007/ 03/ 19/ AR2007031902036.html
That proves that “the list” was on the up-and-up, doesn’t it, trolls? “cause there’s no political reason the Bush Administration would want Patrick Fitzgerald removed as a US Attorney, is there???
March 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pmComment by Roger_Roger #18
Comments by Jake#s 13 & 36
…a wise man (D-NY Nadler) said this morning…
…when ANY administration does something wrong…
…to say a previous administration did it too…
…is NO defense…
…if what you TREASONOUS right wing inbreds posit is true…
…it proves that Repulsivescum have been abdicating their oversight duties…
…and failing the American people for a LONG time…
…they should’ve IMPEACHED Bill Clinton for THAT (instead of Monica)…
…if that was the case…
…which brings us BACK to the present…
…we Democrats FULLY intend to push for:
IMPEACHMENT
INDICTMENT
INCARCERATION
IMPOVERISHMENT
…of EVERYONE we can in the criminal Bushite junta…
…and among their corporate co-conspirators as well…
March 20th, 2007 at 3:44 pmstonehinge:
I’ve only wasted a week here.
KRank:
Too bad TP didn’t post a link to the new and improved CRS methodology (I assume they are using the same 2/22/07 Report but it was only “released” as a Dem talking point yesterday). I would love to see how a different methodology still came up with a total “only” 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in Administration (again, a patently bogus standard if what you say you are complaining about is any replacement for political reasons).
March 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pmskeptic:
Clinton fired the U.S. Attorney looking into Rostenkowsi. Look up his name in the newspaper.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pmI swear 500 years from now they still will be blaming and putting stuff on Clinton, etc.
Can this administration, the God fearing, EVER tell the truth?
Rove is the left satan, and Cheney to right.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pmJake’s only “wasted” a week here. Wow only one week. Keep wasting Jake.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pmWhat, no one wants to discuss the CRS Report that allegedly put the nail in the coffin of “Clinton Didn’t Do It Too”?
P.S. KRank — you saw the quotes I provided above, right? Where did they go?
March 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pmAs late as this afternoon, people are still calling in to C-Span to announce that “Clinton fired all 93″ when he took office. Guest reporters still appear ignorant of what presidents have done in the past 27 years since Carter. Why is this so difficult for them?!
March 20th, 2007 at 4:22 pmClinton fired the U.S. Attorney looking into Rostenkowsi. Look up his name in the newspaper.
Comment by Jake — March 20, 2007
RogerRoger was speaking of plural attorneys fired and plural friends of Clinton investigated. I would still like to know which ones he was thinking about. It was nice of you to volunteer this information, do you have a source? Further details will be appreciated.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pm#43 The US attorney Jay B. Stephens, out of the District of Columbia is just one example. He was investigating Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.
Check out this article:
http://prorev.com/ 2007/ 03/ recovered-history-another-us-attorney.htm
All you have to do is change Clinton with Bush and Reno with Gonzo. Then change the attorney’s names to the current ones and poof, the story would be updated for today’s poltical show trial.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:35 pmJake;
March 20th, 2007 at 4:38 pmCan not find any mention of a District Attorney in connection with Dan Rostenkowski, of the House Post office scandal. Is this the person you were refering to?
Clinton fired the U.S. Attorney looking into Rostenkowsi. Look up his name in the newspaper.
Comment by Jake — March 20, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
I already told you what happened to Rostenkowsi in 1994.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:38 pmToo bad TP didn’t post a link to the new and improved CRS methodology (I assume they are using the same 2/22/07 Report but it was only “released†as a Dem talking point yesterday). I would love to see how a different methodology still came up with a total “only†10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in Administration (again, a patently bogus standard if what you say you are complaining about is any replacement for political reasons).
Comment by Jake — March 20, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
How could there be a different methodology?
March 20th, 2007 at 4:42 pmThis class is:
March 20th, 2007 at 4:43 pmWipe That Stupid Bullshit Smirk Off Your Face You Wank, 101.0,
for Jerk and Patsy. Would you like to sign up now, little fellas? You might actually learn something and get a certificate to take home and show off to your mama.
Clinton is all water under the bridge now boys. It’s your turn on the hot seat. Feel it yet?
March 20th, 2007 at 4:57 pmNat:
I was not the one who claimed that could be a different methodology (see KRank at # 40 — although my repeated QUOTES of said methodology have been deleted, so I don’t know if that post # is correct any more). And, yes, you told me that Rostenkowski still got prosecuted. So, if Rep. Lewis still gets prosecuted, then no harm, no foul?
March 20th, 2007 at 5:05 pm2/22/07 methodology:
“Excluded from these calculations were U.S. attorneys appointed after a change in presidential administration . . . Although Maurice Ellsworth served less than four years, CRS did not conduct further analysis of this incomplete term because different Presidents made the initial and new appointments. This approach 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,
March 20th, 2007 at 5:12 pmand 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.”
I can see the trolls are all Jake’ing themselves off to their talking points, while ignoring the “facts” again. It takes a special kind of *moron* to be a Bush cultist. Jake is one of those *special* people, with the crash helmet and all ;)
March 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pm#47 Jake:
Clinton fired the U.S. Attorney looking into Rostenkowsi. Look up his name in the newspaper.
Ummm, that was one of the ones that were replaced at the beginning of his term. All the old USas were let go then.
Not to mention, Rostenkowski got indicted by Clinton’s USA in an election year, lost his committee chair, lost the election, and pleaded guilty and was sentenced and served time. So where’s the “politics” in that?
Give us one who was replaced in the middle of his term.
Cheers,
March 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pmInteresting. So, if I quote the methodology from the CRS Report here at TP, and it is deleted for some unknown reason, I cannot post the methodology again as I get an error message:
I see how it works (at least you missed my posts # 31 and 36 ; )
March 20th, 2007 at 5:24 pmJay B. Stephens was fired as a normal part of a change of administration. If this was an attempt at protecting Rostenkowski, it didn’t work, as he was later convicted of fraud. Do you have any more articles about Jay B Stephen and his investigation of Dan Rostenkowski? Was Stephen still investigating at the time he was fired?
What are the other examples of Clinton impeding an investigation by firing the U.S district attorney?
March 20th, 2007 at 5:24 pmSorry, Arne, I would but someone at TP is deleting my posts (I know, you are thinking: “FINALLY!”). So much for full and fair debate.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pmskeptic:
He fired the U.S. Attorney for Arkansas, and the new one never submitted anything about Whitewater to a grand jury. Also, as I asked Nat, if Rep. Lewis (R-CA) still gets prosecuted, then no harm, no foul?
March 20th, 2007 at 5:28 pmJake u r aware that TPers do not feel it is necessary to look into your posts and rebut them except with putdowns, name calling, etc.
This is Classic Moon bat 101.
TP is always a great site to observe this rare species with harming their delicate little habitat.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pmSo, if Rep. Lewis still gets prosecuted, then no harm, no foul?
Comment by Jake — March 20, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
No. There are too many corrupt people in this administration; they have to go.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:31 pmI’ve only wasted a week here.
Comment by Jake #46
…please stay Mistah Jake…
…yum yum…
…we love you long time…
March 20th, 2007 at 5:37 pmJake u r aware that TPers do not feel it is necessary to look into your posts and rebut them except with putdowns, name calling, etc.
This is Classic Moon bat 101.
Comment by Flaco — March 20, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
In your first sentence you criticize us for name-calling and then in your second sentence you name-call.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pmJake;
At the time, early 1993 when Clinton took office was there an ongoing investigation by the U.S. District Attorney into Whitewater? If not firing that person would not impede an investigation. A special prosecuter was appointed by Clinton later to investigate Whitewater. This effectively took it out of the hands of the USA for Arkansaw.
Jake, are you authorized to speak for Roger_Roger? I was curious as to his examples not yours.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pmJake u r aware that TPers do not feel it is necessary to look into your posts and rebut them except with putdowns, name calling, etc.
This is Classic Moon bat 101.
TP is always a great site to observe this rare species without harming their delicate little habitat.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:44 pmI don’t know if I am authorized to speak for Roger_Roger — if not (and in case my posts # 31 and 36 get deleted as well), Roger_Roger: here’s the CRS Report TP thinks “nails the coffin”:
http://www.buzzflash.com/ archives/ 07/ US_attrny_rprt.pdf
As an example from the Clinton Administration, a new U.S. Attorney confirmed in 1993 but who was fired in 1996 with no nomination to replace that individual until 1998: “the data collection method utilized by CRS would not have captured the individual . . .”
March 20th, 2007 at 5:45 pmSometimes I remember why I gave up posting on Thinkprogress for awhile. I feel like I am chasing my own tail trying to get more concrete information. I am willing to believe that Clinton was a politician, but I would like to know the details of his crimes before I accept that every sleezy act of George Bush was just a copy of one by Bill.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:46 pmHe fired the U.S. Attorney for Arkansas, and the new one never submitted anything about Whitewater to a grand jury. Also, as I asked Nat, if Rep. Lewis (R-CA) still gets prosecuted, then no harm, no foul?
Comment by Jake — March 20, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
That U.S. attorney who was fired when Clinton came into office was not investigating Whitewater. In fact that U.S. attorney refused to look into it even though George H.W. Bush pressured him to do it so it could be used in the 1992 election. Eventually Ken Starr was put in to investigate Whitewater and he found nothing (a waste of 40 million dollars).
March 20th, 2007 at 5:48 pmAnd the Reich wing nuts have what to say about this??
Comment by Ben Dover — March 20, 2007 @ 2:52
WTF do you care ? Since when has *what* anyone says counted for how brainless ThinkProgress readers react ?
Yesterday I recommended readers go read Greenwald where this information had already been available for a week.
For recommending people read Glenn Greenwald on the topic of law I got told to get the hell out of your country.
Referring people to the blog of a gay liberal who has produced by far the best chronicle of abuse of power by the Bush administration was called “the MO of a right-winger”.
Let’s not pretend you need to wait for right-wingers to present an arguement before you prepare a response.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:58 pm#68 Jake:
[Arne]: Give us one who was replaced in the middle of his term.
Sorry, Arne, I would but someone at TP is deleting my posts…
Paranoia noted. Spam filters delete big load of repeated stuff. Now on to the meat of the matter:
I wasn’t asking for a freakin’ diissertation. All I asked for is one name.
Cheers,
March 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pm#69 Jake:
He fired the U.S. Attorney for Arkansas, and the new one never submitted anything about Whitewater to a grand jury.
Also done with the change in administration. But FWIW, the old (Republican-appointed) USA there said there was no “there” there, and refused to go any further, saying that even naming the Clintons as “material witnesses” would verge on prosecutorial misconduct.
Robert Fiske said the same thing.
And then, after you got your $60 million, six year witch-hunt, even the rabid Starr and his more rabid buddies Ewing, Bittman, et.al. had to conclude that in fact there was … tada! … no “there” there.
Cheers,
March 20th, 2007 at 6:21 pmJake, your confusion is understandable; you’re not very bright to begin with, and this can be tricky stuff. But your claim that the methodolgy of the Feb 22 report “seriously undercounts” the number of USAs let go in the middle of their terms requires a stubborn misreading of the report. You cite the disclaimer that the number does not include those released at the change of an administration (which is normal) as somehow being evidence of this undercount.
You cite the USA for Arkansas who did not pursue an investigation of Whitewater and was then replaced with another USA who likewise refused to investigate it. Given that the Clintons lost money on the deal, and that Ken Starr’s 70 million doillar investigation found no wrongdoing in that case, maybe they were wise to not investigate, huh?
And you cite a USA fired in 1996 as somehow equivalent to what BushCo is doing now, when that was a single US Attorney, and he was involved in an embarrassing personal scandal, not a politically inconvenient investigation.
Bless your heart, though, you do try.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:42 pmCHIMPya and FAT-F*CK Rove HAVE AS MUCH CREDIBILITY AS COPPER WIRE THIEVES ATOP THE POLE, CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF CUTTING THE WIRE, THE WIRE IN THEIR HANDS AND IN THEIR TRUCK, SAYING “WE DON’T KNOW WHERE THIS WIRE CAME FROM–NEVER SAW IT BEFORE IN OUR LIVES OR IN OUR PREVIOUS LIVES, EITHER! Bill Clinton MADE US DO IT, AND HE DID IT TOO!!!!!” LYING SACKS OF HYENA-SHIT!!!!!
March 20th, 2007 at 11:22 pmClinton had 72 US Attorneys resign. Unlike the current 8 they did so gracefully and moved on. As an employee of the US Attorneys office I can tell you the code you need to look up is for resignations.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:01 am#84. More details please? Were these 2nd term resignations? What did these people do next. The report sited above mentioned some District Attorneys went on to judgeships and elected office.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:59 amSeems to me this report is asking the wrong question. It’s limited to “U.S. Attorneys who have served less than full four-year terms”. The USAs recently purged had completed their four-year term, and were forced out after that.
Where is the equivalent research for USAs who have been fired/resigned outside of the 4-year term?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:44 pmThe presidents that served 8 years and who could fire U. S. District Attorneys in their second term would be Reagan, Clinton and Bush. It would be nice to see Reagan’s and Clinton’s record but I don’t think either one fired USa for political cause.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:12 pm[…] Think Progress » Congressional Report: Clinton Didn’t Do It Too “Of the 468 confirmations made by the Senate over the 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration prior to the firings that took place in December.” (tags: attorneygate bush corruption) […]
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:17 pmQuick, the rightwing blogosphere is starving for a new talking point!
How about “no evidence has come to light yet that anything improper was done?”
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 pmLots of Clinton fans calling other people liars, as if…. Oh - and speaking of treasonous…Mr Clinton would have been impeached for treason if Reno had had any balls… Oh, wait….Never mind - I guess exchanging military secrets to Red China for campaign contributions isn’t as bad as actually protecting Americans from their enemies. Never mind - just carry on.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm[…] appointments and dismissing them at will is a regular habit of all presidents - failing as usual to acknowledge the details of those other presidents and the motivations. In many ways the firing of U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons is […]
April 11th, 2007 at 1:53 am