Comments on: Congressional Report: Clinton Didn’t Do It Too

By: A wicked fellow is the most pious when he takes to it. He'll beat you all at piety" « The Long Goodbye

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:53:08 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:26:21 +0000

Lots 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.

By: melior

melior — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:56:36 +0000

Quick, the rightwing blogosphere is starving for a new talking point!

How about “no evidence has come to light yet that anything improper was done?”

By: Akkam’s Razor

Akkam’s Razor — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:17:54 +0000

[...] Think Progress Â» Congressional Report: Clinton Didnâ€™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) [...]

By: skeptic

skeptic — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:12:23 +0000

The 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.

By: Noel

Noel — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:44:41 +0000

Seems 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?

By: skeptic

skeptic — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:59:15 +0000

#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.

By: Gov Employee

Gov Employee — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:01:38 +0000

Clinton 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.

By: Raymond Funamoto

Raymond Funamoto — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:22:59 +0000

CHIMPya 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!!!!!

By: KRank

KRank — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:42:26 +0000

Jake, 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.

By: Arne Langsetmo

Arne Langsetmo — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:21:21 +0000

#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,

By: Arne Langsetmo

Arne Langsetmo — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:16:25 +0000

#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,

By: Kilo

Kilo — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:58:58 +0000

And the Reich wing nuts have what to say about this??
Comment by Ben Dover â€” 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.

By: Nat

Nat — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:48:28 +0000

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?
Comment by Jake â€” 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).

By: skeptic

skeptic — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:46:39 +0000

Sometimes 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.

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:45:51 +0000

I 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: â€œthe data collection method utilized by CRS would not have captured the individual . . .”

By: Flaco

Flaco — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:44:33 +0000

Jake 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.

By: skeptic

skeptic — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:38:51 +0000

Jake;
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.

By: Nat

Nat — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:38:00 +0000

Jake 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 â€” 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.

By: big papa

big papa — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:37:20 +0000

Iâ€™ve only wasted a week here.

Comment by Jake #46

…please stay Mistah Jake…

…yum yum…

…we love you long time…