ABC Frets Over Dismissal of 8 U.S. Attorneys; Ignored Clinton’s Firing of 93 Attorneys

Photo of Scott Whitlock.
By Scott Whitlock | March 13, 2007 - 12:30 ET

[Scroll below for 5:24pm EDT] On Tuesday’s "Good Morning America," ABC anchor Robin Roberts speculated and fretted over the allegations that some U.S. attorneys were fired because they wouldn’t aggressively investigate Democrats. Roberts dramatically stated that the firings highlight "a trail that points straight to the top" and wondered "how big could this be?"

Yet when President Clinton fired 93 attorneys at the beginning of his first term, ABC never mentioned the story.

The entire GMA report, filed by correspondent Pierre Thomas, was framed from the perspective of how the Democrats perceive this growing scandal and whom they suspect:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

ROBIN ROBERTS: "Questions about the firing of top U.S. attorneys. Who decided to fire them and why? It’s a story that’s been building for days and the reports out this morning highlight a trail that points straight to the top. ABC’s justice correspondent Pierre Thomas is following this story for us. Good morning, Pierre."

PIERRE THOMAS: "Hi, Robin. This morning we're learning the White House may have instigated those firings. And some of those U.S. attorneys are saying they may have been canned because they not- did not aggressively investigate some of the Democrats. The Attorney General has been on the hot seat. The Attorney General has categorically denied the firings for politically motivated."

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES: "I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons."

THOMAS: "But some of the U.S. attorneys have suggested they may have been fired because they did not aggressively pursue investigation of Democrats. And this morning, we're learning that President Bush himself raised questions about some U.S. attorneys. His then White House Council Harriet Miers initiated the purge in 2005. Miers worked closely with the chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The U.S. attorneys were targeted and fired without being told why. Sources tell ABC News that Gonzalez’ chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, may announce his resignation as early as today, amidst criticism that Congress was not fully informed in the White House role in the dismissals. Democrats now in charge on Capitol Hill have been demanding answers."

Sen. CHARLES SCHUMER (D) "Federal prosecutors are supposed to be he heroic soldiers in the fight against crime and corruption, not hapless casualties of political warfare."

THOMAS: "Democrats suspect key White House advisor Karl Rove played a role in the firings and they want to investigate whether Republicans on Capitol Hill also were at play. The White House has denied any wrong doing. Robin and George?"

ROBERTS: "All right. Pierre. Thanks very much, Pierre."

Before moving on to another story, Roberts and guest host George Stephanopoulos briefly discussed the topic. Unsurprisingly, the former Clinton advisor also repeated Democratic suspicions and accusations:

ROBERTS: "We've been talking about it this morning. Obviously a growing controversy. But George, how big could this be?"

At no time during the segment, which aired at 7:04am on March 13, did any GMA host or reporter mention Bill Clinton’s firing of 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office. The MRC noted this in the April 1993 edition of MediaWatch:

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say `Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is."

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "Well, that is the question right now. Democrats are gonna’ try to take this right to the White House based on these stories this morning. They’re going to say the President's former top lawyer Harriet Miers was involved, his top political advisor Karl Rove was involved. Even the President himself knew about it. You can expect subpoenas to Karl Rove to come up and testify. He might try to fight it. But it’s going to be hard for him to resist that. And on top of that, Robin, as we said, already there are calls for the Attorney General Gonzales to resign. And this is going to increase the pressure on him even more."

[Updated 5:24pm EDT] It turns out that GMA host George Stephanopoulos, who in 1993 was a presidential spokesman for Bill Clinton, actually commented on Clinton’s mass firing of U.S. attorneys. According to a "Washington Post" article by Dan Balz that ran on March 26 of that year, there was nothing unusual about the dismissals:

Presidential spokesman George Stephanopoulos said it was not unusual for a president to ask for such resignations, although Republicans said presidents in the past have not asked for mass resignations, replacing them over a period of time as replacements were found.

Stephanopoulos said only those U.S. attorneys who are in the middle of trials will be allowed to continue working and said an interim appointee could capably pick up [U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Jay B.] Stephens's investigation of the House Post Office scandal, with no serious disruption or political interference.

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Attorneys & answer

You just answered my note in OPEN THREAD.  I knew that this is a usual practice, kinda a you scratched my back & now I'm in office, I'll stratch yours with this new position.  Thanks.

It's a "Scandle" fo

It's a "Scandle" for President Bush to exercise his constitutional rights ?  Carl Rove is involved...?  Geez, what a bunch of Nitwit Network Democratic baloney.

The Liberal press has somehow perceived themselves as "Out of the Closet"....Maybe it was the Scooter trial that suddenly made them feel empowered ? 

I think Bush should IMMEDIATELY  Pardon Scooter, fire 8 more US attorneys, Send some more troops to Iraq, and other perfectly Legal political actions, and "Drive" the Liberal Press INSANE.

It will be a Short Drive. 

At Times like these, it becomes more than just a Moral Obligation to express ones opinion, it becomes a Pleasure.

They only fired 8? Pikers.

They only fired 8? Pikers. They should have fired every single one that BJ Clintoon hired. Anyone associated with BJ is tainted, otherwise they would have escaped his notice.

What took you so long? I was

What took you so long? I was waiting for another ridiculous talking point that anyone who's been following this story even marginally knows is a flat-out distortion.

First of all, Bush DID fire Clinton's attorneys when he got into office, just like Clinton fired Daddy's. That's CUSTOMARY. What's not customary is firing your OWN attorneys mid term when they don't go on enough anti-Democratic witch hunts to satisfy Karl Rove and Pete Domenici.

That's why this story is so big. I guess the fact that it took you guys this long to come up with this meager rationale to rally behind is evidence of that fact. Trust me, Gonzales won't last the week.

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

waka waka March 13,2007 prediction FAILS COMPLETELY

waka waka wacka wacka demolib crackpot:

03/13/2007 above " Trust me, Gonzales won't last the week."

 5 months later, Gonzales is untouched, but waka waka is still "touched".

WW- people get fired when t

WW- people get fired when they're not performing up to expectations, or for offenses, or because they have lost the confidence of their employer, or for any of a number of reasons. And- trust you? Sure. Like I trust Bill Clinton to be celibate. Like I trust his wife to tell the truth. Like I trust Sandy Burglar with classified documents. Like I trust the Dimocrats to not emaciate the military. BTW, you still have an error in your tag line- I'll have to correct it for you again. I don't mind, really!

Reality has a well-known conservative bias.

No, asserting something's &

No, asserting something's "CUSTOMARY" does not magically make it so. Clinton's firing of ALL US Attorneys at the beginning of his Presidency was actually UNPRECEDENTED THROUGHOUT ALL OF US HISTORY, if my memory is correct, and as I recall this hyperpolitical move was even protested, in the case of one Dade County, FL attorney she knew well, by his own Attorney General, Janet Reno.
JMR

It is customary for a new pre

It is customary for a new president to replace most or all of the US attorneys at the start of his presidency. Bush did it in fact. What's unusual about this is that outside of gross improprieties it is almost unheard of for it to happen during the presidential term. I think there have only been three such firings previously. The beauty of all this from the democrats point of view is that almost all the fired US attorneys are Republicans so this has ticked off a lot of their Republican senatorial sponsors. This is a serious matter make no mistake about it. The overt lobbying by two members of congress plus the White House political meddling that is being confirmed by the docs being made public is a very sensitive issue both from a strictly legal standpoint and a presentational one. If you doubt it why is Gonzales holding a press conference on the issue. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some of these DOJ staffers are going to have to take the fifth when they go before congress which would be a presentational disaster. At the same time the WH is certain to resist a Rove appearance. Anyone who thinks this is good is out of their mind.     

No, "customary" d

No, "customary" doesn't mean what Clinton did, which was better described as UNPRECEDENTED because no Presindent in the history of the United States had ever fired 100% of 'em, period. Quit trying to rewrite history, it won't work!!! I'm here.
JMR

Sarcasmo since you are such a

Sarcasmo since you are such an expert on custom and practice in the appointment of US attorney's. How many did Bush fire at the start of his presidency? The seriousness of this matter is demonstrated by the fact that there have already been two senior resignations in the justice dept. The sensitivity of all this arises because once appointed US attorneys are supposed to be above politics. Any real or apparent interference with the exercise of their prosecutorial functions is a very serious matter.   

I'm not "an expert,&qu

I'm not "an expert," nor did I ever claim to be one. I just know recent history, and Clinton's move was, like it or not, unprecedented. Period. The behavior of Bush is completely-beside my point (one of the Bush 8 was said to have been fired for inadequate enforcement of firearms laws I think are morally-wrong, for example). My point is simple: "you don't get to re-write history. I'm here."
JMR

Sarcasmo.You spoke with such

Sarcasmo.You spoke with such authority on the subject I thought you must be a lawyer as I was a long time ago. Why is it completely beside the point that Bush also changed all of them at the start of his presidency. In fact it is it what normally happens particularly at the start of of a presidency when the other party has been in power for eight years and the incoming president replace all or most of the sitting attorneys. I haven't bothered to check but I'd be surprised if Clinton's action in letting them all go was unprecedented. Alas Sarcasmo it is you who are rewriting history. 

No, I repeat, Clinton's 100

No, I repeat, Clinton's 100% was unprecedented, like it or not. We're not discussing any sort of "most" either, we're discussing Slick's unprecedented 100%. Care to make a wager if you think I'm wrong??? I followed the Reno matter, where she tried to save a single Republican she apparently admired from her home-district, quite closely, so I'm amenable to a large wager if we can find an appropriate escrow entity...And assuming we're not breaking the port security laws, which sadly we probably would-be. Anyway, go look at newspapers from the period, and prepare to be surprised...What Bush did, sadly, wasn't unprecedented because solely of what Clinton did.
JMR

Sarcasmo, don't be such an as

Sarcasmo, don't be such an ass. It's normal for all or most US attorneys to be replaced at the start of a presidential term. Clinton did, Bush did it and so has just about every other president. You clearly have little knowledge of how this all works. The DOJ are in deep doo doo over this matter as they should be as it goes to the heart of prosecutorial independance. You can't have US attorneys adjusting their behavior for political reasons or pursueing prosecutions for political reasons, it would completely undermine the entire legal system. We'd have Republican prosecutors doing it today and Democratic ones doing it tomorrow. This is a dynamite issue whether you want to accept it or not.      

How is teaching remedial-history being an ass?

How is teaching remedial-history being "such an ass"? Slick, like it or not, was the first President in US history to replace 100% of the US attorneys, despite Janet Reno's wise protests over one guy (I think the guy's name was Martinez) at the very start of his term. What Bush is doing right now isn't at all relevant to the subject of not letting you rewrite recent history. I remember this quite well. Deal with it.
JMR

Here's the icing on the cake,

Here's the icing on the cake, namely a DOJ press release from 2001. In fact, Dubyah didn't fire all of them en masse, as 1/3 of them had already offered their resignations by the time this press release was issued:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

Del and Otto - you don't kn

Del and Otto - you don't know how the process works - you are giving a straw man argument. All Presidents Transition the Attorneys they don't fire them immediately. Reno fired them and gave them 10 days or something to get out. She was the first person to do this. Normally its a gradual process.

I don't think it's odd at all that 8 would be replaced during a second admistration. I wouldn't expect it to be 93 but of course there would be some. Just like cabinet appointments some stay some go.

Hi sarc,Did you ever get to s

Hi sarc,

Did you ever get to see the C-Span announcement for President yesterday on the Wa. Journal yet for Ron Paul, and the callers?

Just curious if you ever got the time...

You do know otto is just a troll makin' mischief...as usual...lol!

Later...I'm frying fish elsewhere...

Haven't dug it up yet, I've

Haven't dug it up yet, I've been too busy doing things like correcting the above attempted-rewrite of Slick's early history...
JMR

Sarc

I have heard that it is routine, I can't find any print about the subject, but if you have some produce it. Otherwise you are just, "here", taking up space. Just your saying its so, doesn't make it so. And no, drudge, fauxnews, do not count as sources. It is time we call out that they are not legitimate.

Bull. Let's just break the

Bull. Let's just break the new & undebated "port security" law and put some money on it if you want me to dig up something to prove I'm right. I want pay for this one, because your side (like the conservatives) does not get to make-up "facts" when sarcasmo's around on NB. My bet is the sentence in bold (minus the Martinez parenthetical, as my memory's sketchy on that name & there are LOTS of Martinezes in Dade County) on my previous comment. Put up or shut up. I recall this event distinctly because I'm a bit of a student of Janet Reno, an interesting woman & not Slick's first-choice, if y'all recall...
JMR

Sarc

I can show you the article that says that Clinton removed all but one, Michael Chertoff, from their positions when he took office. What is in question is where this is unprecedented?

I am all for facts, I have heard on a number of occasions that this is routine, I don't have the answer so I asked you to prove it or stop with the I'm right bull.

Because in fact I think this is the minor point of this story and the issue is around not numbers but why this was done? And is this action unusual, why and what it means?

I think it matters because it is a continuation of the theme from this admin acting on desires rather than thought, knowledge and prudence.

Ok, so where's the article?

Ok, so where's the article? In the Reno controversy about the Dade Republican she trusted, the Miami Herald, as I recall, said he removed all of them and did not mention any Michael Chertoff exception. (Hmm. But for some reason sarcasmo despite experience is trusting the Miami Herald...Could be an issue!) But please, a link.
JMR

Here is a link

Clinton fired US attorneys also, the question is why and the relevance.

What I am looking for is intelligent thoughtful discussion. Why does this matter? I won't call you names or insult you, if you produce information and reasonable arguments.

Look at both sides critically and we can both be enlightened.

Ok, I'm looking critically

Ok, I'm looking critically (just like I have-been from the start of this...) and I see Roger's Time link saying "all" and yours from NRO saying all-but-one. I still remember "all" from back then, too, and no Chertoff exception. Should I lie about that to everyone?
JMR

sarc

When did I ask you to lie?

If you recall I never even said you were wrong, I said I couldn't find any thing in print on the rarity of removing all and asked you for evidence.

And again you avoid the questions.

Well, there's been this all

Well, there's been this allegation that I'm wrong just because I'm correcting made-up history, and those making up the history seem, from here, to want me to lie. And I still think I'm not wrong. I think instead the NRO got it wrong. Think about the 2007 date on their article. A lot gets made-up over time, and Time magazine from 1994 has by-definition a MUCH closer look at that aspect of US history, so I'm still with Roger's link & my memory. And see below, I've answered all of your questions, but in a way that's likely to -- as usual -- annoy every "major" party partisan here.
JMR

If FOXNEWS doesn't count, the

If FOXNEWS doesn't count, then neither does the LA Times, NY Times, CBS, NBC, MSNBC.

Concerning Drudge, you do realize that 90% of his site is a link to a news article. So if the NY Times writes it and Drudge links to it is it true or false?????

chad

So he links to articles, it is once he tries to interpret what he reads that he falls flat on his face. That is what makes him not a source. Take the articles and talk about what they say, but you can't use drudge as a source, he has been shown to make up way too much.

Fox is the same issue.

Its not the same at all. I kn

Its not the same at all. I know all you lefties just want to silence FOX - but it won't work. FOX is #1 in cable for a reason. More than just republicians are watching.

So if the news source leans left (cbs, nbc, etc etc) It is OK with you. But if they lean right they can't be used? Nice try.

The can't be trusted

The issue is reliability. Fox slants things, ie Libby found not guilty header. While technically true, very misleading. That is one thing. The issue is the number of things where they have simply made up facts or lied.

Use them if you like, then I just have to dismantle them, then take on your logic and reasoning and it just takes longer. I was trying to remove a step.

See Roger's post below. Unl

See Roger's post below. Unless Time magazine is now part of the Fox news media conspiracy you've described, you're being irrelevant. And Roger (drat!) spoiled any chances of my taking your money, so I'm almost as annoyed at him as I am at you creative lefties trying to make up history.
JMR

OH - you mean the headline th

OH - you mean the headline that was technically true, but you had to read the article to find out the real truth. hahahahahahahhahahaLMAO

Like the NY Times headlines? or headlines from the LA times or even headers from CNN. Please - all news outlets do that. I have no intention of debating you. I don't even know what you want to debate. I just thought it was funny that you said FOX and Drudge couldn't be used as sources. Let me ask you, are there ANY news sites that lean right that you will accept?

Take Google, add 30 seconds =

Take Google, add 30 seconds = results.

You may go now.

Roger

Roger see my post above, it is not about whether or not clinton removed almost all attorney's it is an issue of this being unusual. A claim not addressed or made in the article to link to.

Thanks for the attitude, but start with reading and understanding first.

You may stay to learn.

Nope. Not "almost all." 100%.

Nope. Not "almost all." 100%. And right from the start, just like I said. Has any President before Slick ever been that-hyperpartisan WRT the appointment of US Attorneys? I say "find one."
JMR

See my link above from the NRO

They say all but one, that doesn't change the fact that this is never what I disputed. I have said why is this unusual and what is are the ramifications? This is the question.

Why did they remove these attorney's? What does it say about you? Do you all live in a state ruled by laws? Yes or no? If you remove the people who don't prosecute the laws you like and remove the ones you don't you are subverting the rule of law. This is the issue.

You may-not-have, but &quot

You may-not-have, but "Otto" sure did. And considering Slick's hyperpartisan & unprecedented actions, the Bush firing is better described as "typical" than "unusual" IMO.

I think in both cases it was politics (read the whole Time article for more recent Slick history). It says absolutely-nothing about me (I'm constantly bothering people here with talk of bipartisan scandals). I live in a state (& country) that's ruled by too-large of a government and too many laws, so that's a "yes." And if you're actually honest-enough to describe the issue we've discussed here as "typical bipartisan criminality" then I absolutely-agree it's the issue.
JMR

Ok, so I've got the "1

Ok, so I've got the "100%" part right (thanks for spoiling any chance of an illegal profit from the lefties who are trying to make-up history, Rog!). I'm also sure it's unprecedented for him to have removed them all that early (I'm pretty sure some presidencies, like FDR's, would probably have eventually removed all former appointees simply due to the passage of time, but I'm talkin' about the hyperpartisan move of firing them ALL at once, right at the start, like Slick did for the other 1/2 of what I claimed to be also-right.)
JMR

From wikipedia: Chertoff was

From wikipedia: 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.

From DHS:

Before joining the Bush Administration, Chertoff was a Partner in the law firm of Latham & Watkins. From 1994 to 1996, he served as Special Counsel for the U.S. Senate Whitewater Committee.

Prior to that, Chertoff spent more than a decade as a federal prosecutor, including service as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, and Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. As United States Attorney, Chertoff investigated and prosecuted several significant cases of political corruption, organized crime, and corporate fraud.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/chertoff-bio.html

Now that we've got this irrelevant issue settled, let's discuss how many days Gonzo has left.

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

I think from the other link

I think from the other links that the distinction (tiny, I know) between Chertoff & Reno's Dade County Republican buddy who was fired is that Chertoff was merely an "acting" US Attorney, and Reno's Miami buddy had been confirmed.
JMR

So you get your facts from Wi

So you get your facts from Wikipedia? You've got to be kidding!  Anyone can post anything, true or false to Wikipedia and it's not checked by real authorities.

Off the top of my head, I b

Off the top of my head, I believe acting U.S. Attorney Frederick Black was appointed by GHWB, and terminated by GWB.

Not-possible unless he was

Not-possible unless he was rehired first. Clinton's term intervened (see Roger's money-losing-for-me link to the Time magazine Slick-fired-100% from-the-start article). I think the creative historians have all run for the hills at this point, anyway...
JMR

Don't have the time to trac

Don't have the time to track down the fella's whole employment history, but this was the first article

that popped in my search. Seems he served uninterrupted for quite some time.

Later.

Aha! The discrepancy must

Aha! The discrepancy must lie in the "acting" part of his title. He was never made a permanent USA, but served as "acting" USA for many years.

(talking to myself, but...)

(talking to myself, but...) per this Fox News article, Pres. Reagan, too, canned 100% of the U.S. Attorneys upon taking office.

Very interesting, thanks. O

Very interesting, thanks. Of course, now that we've seen 2 sources on this thread from 2 different decades saying 2 different things, I pine for a nonexistant pre-internet Reagan-era link from a THIRD decade. Or at least Fox News' source on Ronnie doing it immediately, instead of at least letting them finish wrapping up their cases, as I'm sure with 8 years he'd have eventually gotten rid of them all. But I still recall the Miami Herald (I know, I know...) saying what Clinton did was unprecedented and writing an editorial asking him to retain Reno's Republican friend.
JMR

I've got a block-lettered p

I've got a block-lettered pre-Guttenberg prophesy of same from the eleventh century, but the damn thing won't fit on my scanner.

I think the following bit fr

I think the following bit from FoxNews deserves highlighting. I'm inclined to take them at their word as long as it's written by an actual reporter and not John "We need more white babies" Gibson.

"When the party in power changes hands in the White House, it is expected that the new president will fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as was the case for both Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. President Bush, unlike Clinton and Reagan, did not fire all the attorneys en masse when he took office in 2001, and allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months. All were replaced with his own selections early in his administration, however.

It is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job."

I'd also like to highlight the fact that this whole debate got started because sarcasmo "remembered" a Miami Herald story calling Clinton's move "unprecedented." Nice job, sarcasmo! Once again, a wingnut has diverted the debate from the real controversy by manufacturing (intentionally or unintentionally) an irrelevant side issue involving Bill Clinton.

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

See. "Remembered.&quot

See. "Remembered." I guess Time Magazine at the time was just lying...And if you want to discuss what Bush did, I do not see how I've stopped you by insisting on discovering the correct history -- whatever it happens to be, even if it conflicts with my distinct memory -- when it comes to Clinton. And unlike you, I don't give nearly this much credence to Fox News, which as I've said moments-ago is biased as hell just like the rest of the media against libertarian ideas/candidates, and is desperately trying, for the sake of "choice" I guess, to push the Republican party to the left during their primary process by covering only Northeastern RINOs.
JMR

I'd like to highlight the f

I'd like to highlight the fact that you now have an entire 'nother NB thread in which to bash Bush, in which I've posted this link, which is likely to annoy various Republicans at least as much as my recent-history-lesson here has apparently annoyed you. I promise I won't even mention the Time article about Clinton criminality over there, so have at it. Prove Chavez is right & Bush is actually Satan instead of just an ordinary big-government Republican prone to the usual temptations. You have all the space in the world right here (your problem, as usual, is filling that space with coherent thought!).
JMR

Sarc

I am not sure if this was a response to me, but the link does indeed raise some of the relevant points.

Moreover is the fallout today. If there is nothing wrong in these actions as is trying to be portrayed her, then why did Gonzalez give false reasons for the removals?

Cider - thanks for the articl

Cider - thanks for the article

When the party in power changes hands in the White House, it is expected that the new president will fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as was the case for both Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. President Bush, unlike Clinton and Reagan, did not fire all the attorneys en masse when he took office in 2001, and allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months. All were replaced with his own selections early in his administration, however.

Of cousre, this is different because

1. they proscecuted too many Republicans or not enough Democrats and

2. the replacements do not need senate approval thanks to the new and improved ant-terrorist PATRIOT ACT

Since NewsBusters, favorably cites Clinton, you would think Clinton was an exceptionally well qualified President

What is wrong with our stup

What is wrong with our stupid Representatives? They should be screaming loudly about stuff like this. They constantly act polite and get run over. Why can't they learn?

Dee,I am furious with the non

Dee,

I am furious with the non-response from the republicans...they should be in UNISON voicing their outrage over the crocodile tears Schumer, Feinstein, Leahy and others are crying all to try and strike another political point against this administration..why the President doesn't make one huge statement about this is beyond me, all he would have to do is come out and say hey, we can fire all the rest anytime we please, be lucky it was just eight, after-all your previous fearless leader fired every single one of them when he took office....so shut the hell up!

Something I have never ever understood this administration didn't do from the beginning, except the thought they would get bad press and just wanted to get along...blah blah blah...

I heard this morning that Harriet Meir's wanted that done from the beginning and Gonzales was against it, as some know, I have posted my great disappointment in Gonzales, I do think he should be fired...now I understand why nothing has been done about WaPo, the NYT's, and other investigations that should of already been done and completed with GJ testimony and indictments already brought...oh well, I give up and look to a strong conservative leader in the future who has some cajones when it comes to the leftist msm and the leftists party itself and better advise given him when it comes to these matters.

We have been living with the Clintoon's picks in our Justice system, it is disgraceful in my opinion...disgraceful.

BT - I know - it's so frust

BT - I know - it's so frustrating because the Republicans won't learn that taking the higher ground is not working for them. I don't want to see them become as nasty as the dems in their accusations, but when they are accused they need to fight back hard.

Like the stupid travel scandal with Hastert - that went away because (not the Republicans) but because the press for once looked into travel records of the Dems. And that was mostly local reporters - at least here in Chicago - they talked about Durbin - not just Hastert.

They are behind the 8-ball with the national Press not covering issues but they need to speek out every time they are in front of the camera.

The silence of Reps is what d

The silence of Reps is what drives me nuts.  Some Dem/Lib levels a charge or an accusation of some kind and nothing is said. No response, no rebuttal, nothing. Bush's non-response to his critics drives me crazy. Forget the high road once in a while and fight back. Get down and dirty.  Why not?  My personal idol, Ronald Reagan, did and I was proud he was my Cammander in Chief.

 It's the same with man-made Global Warming...I mean Climate Change (sorry, Rehab is in order). No Rep will come out and publically back those scientists who question that GW/CC is man-made.

I want to see a Rep leader fight back.  God, I miss Reagan!

"And yet, when President Clin

"And yet, when President Clinton fired 93 attorneys at the beginning of his first term, ABC never mentioned the story."
I bet ABC doesn't know about that, I wonder if they have a way to submit this scoop to them like on Drudge. Oh my gosh if Clinton knew about it I feel sorry for him, they are going to drag him over the coals for this. I just realized that Stephanopoulis worked for Clinton, is it possible that he was involved? Wow ABC even going after one of their own. Holding those in power accountable to the people, great work guys.

Don't you mean Co-Presidents

Don't you mean Co-Presidents Bill and Hillary?  I don't believe for a minute that the firings were only Bill's decisions.

I doubt if the 1st Black Prez

I doubt if the 1st Black Prez had a thing to do with it... he was busy elsewhere most times.

Shrillary handled all of that.

Just ask Billy Dale....and others.

Throw in some missing FBI files anyone while we're at it....whatever happened to Livingston? Webb Hubbell...

LOL! 

Or Ron Brown?

Or Ron Brown?

Don't you mean Co-Presidents

Sorry for the double posting folks.  Having satellite internet problems.  Must be Global Warming...I mean Climate Change.

drive carefully

i know you are sorry

Dr. Carpareus ASS.SK.

drive carefully

Here we go again, the dems fi

Here we go again, the dems fishing for a scandal. Hey dem, if you are serious about goverment employees involved in scandal, how 'bout William Jefferson's freezer bank??? How 'bout Sandy Burger's classified safe in his pants???

Hey ABC... why not really report those stories? You should since you are so unbiased!!! Right???

Like shooting fish in a barre

Like shooting fish in a barrel my friend. The Bush administration's meltdown over the last year has really been breathtaking. They've certainly proven the conservative axiom that government is the problem.

And the right's continued hystrionics about "Burglar" and "Dollar Bill" Jefferson just gets better with age. Who cares! Two knuckleheads working alone does not a Culture of Corruption make, and repeatedly pointing them out just highlights the difference between the two parties. So keep it up! Jefferson and Burglar! Jefferson and Burglar! Jefferson and Burglar!

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Burglar was working for CLINT

Burglar was working for CLINTON you fool.

Bush melt-down? All concervat

Bush melt-down? All concervatives ask is for equal investigations under the law. Who cares? All Americans should care if any politician is on the take. And it is quite oblious that only Republicans can be guilty of crimes even fabricated ones.

You lost me with the rest of your childish rant.

Like shooting fish in a barre

Like shooting fish in a barrel my friend. The Bush administration's meltdown over the last year has really been breathtaking. They've certainly proven the conservative axiom that government is the problem.

And the right's continued hystrionics about "Burglar" and "Dollar Bill"  Jefferson just gets better with age. Who cares! Two knuckleheads working alone does not a Culture of Corruption make, and repeatedly pointing them out just highlights the difference between the two parties. So keep it up! Jefferson and Burglar! Jefferson and Burglar! Jefferson and Burglar!

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Like shooting fish in a barre

Like shooting fish in a barrel my friend. The Bush administration's meltdown over the last year has really been breathtaking. They've certainly proven the conservative axiom that government is the problem.

And the right's continued hystrionics about "Burglar" and "Dollar Bill"   Jefferson just gets better with age. Who cares! Two knuckleheads working alone does not a Culture of Corruption make, and repeatedly pointing them out just highlights the difference between the two parties. So keep it up! Jefferson and Burglar! Jefferson and Burglar! Jefferson and Burglar!

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Surreality has a well-known

Surreality has a well-known liberal bias.

Notice how, with triple posti

Notice how, with triple postings Waka Waka resembles what Goering once said about (I'm paraprashing here) if one repeats a lie often enough, the people will soon believe it.

Wilbur... c'mon, cut the gu

Wilbur... c'mon, cut the guy a little slack! He's just trying to prove that you can be a spammer AND a troll at the same time!

I'm sorry. I'll enter rehab i

I'm sorry. I'll enter rehab immediately.  I just hope I didn't cause irreparable emotional damage to Waka. I don't know if I'll be able to live with myself.

From the Bloomberg article

From the Bloomberg article linked in the top of the post:

The (Justice) department has said that most of the eight were fired for unspecified problems with their performance or for not following Bush administration policy goals.

And what is wrong with that?

And what is wrong with that?  They are members of the Executive Branch after all...

WW,If you get the chance I ad

WW,

If you get the chance I advise you to go to C-Span and watch the hearings Schumer had with some of these individuals that were fired, he thought he was really going to score some big time points...

Well, Specter made a fool of him, and them in my opinion.

Much to Schumer's chagrin.

Btw...Finally Specter did something worthwhile..lol!

[Scratching head...] But ther

[Scratching head...] But there's no crime here. It isn't illegal to dismiss these attorneys, for any reason. It's like accusing the Bush White House of monogamy. "These acts of monogamy could go right to the top!"

Harriet Miers ... "was involved."
"Even" ... the President ... "knew about it."
"He might try to fight it."

This is becoming Monty Pythonesque...

There's an interesting articl

There's an interesting article over at NRO by Kane Webb, former assistant editorial-page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.  The article is about a recent talk that Rove gave at, of all places, the Clinton library in Little Rock!  After the talk, in a question and answer session, someone asked: Can you explain the controversial firing of the seven United States attorneys?  to which Rove replied:  “The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Traditionally, they’re given four-year terms. . . . Clinton replaced all 93 when he took office. We’ve appointed 128 [so far]. Clinton did 123. Because seven were [replaced] all at once, people wanted to play politics with it.”

full article can be found at the link below

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjE4NjJlYjJiMDJkZjQwMmQyZTQ3YjViZDE1Y2IzZTY=

Now, now- smile when you sa

KC... Now, now- smile when you say that!

Oh I am smiling ... you can'

Oh I am smiling ... you can't take this stuff too seriously.

Why would anyone pay to see a comedian these days, when we get so much comedy for free?

You silly sod!

NY Times picked up Clinton's firings..

NY Times picked up Clinton's firings.. and this was interesting (sorry, but I'm not going to pay for the archive):

ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORSMarch 24, 1993, Wednesday By DAVID JOHNSTON, (Special to The New York Times); National DeskLate Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 1053 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski (D.), a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, the ...

Sooo .. looks like the Clinton camp might have been firing becuase of ongoing criminial investigations of Democrats.

Miss Reno suddenly fired all

Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys

JDW

Wounded skier, beware of mistakes.

News media: Scoreboard for terrorists


It would be great to have formatting

I heard from one news source

I heard from one news source that in fact Clinton was worried about one of the Prosecutors going after Webb Hubbell. Remember him?

The MSM has selective memory

The MSM has selective memory as does Schumer, it is as though they are living in the Twilight Zone. Liberals are hypocrites.

Hereford, for a good time call

i'm gettin' to old for this shite so FWN. MAJOR drug case in what SW town was disrupted as a result? Too bad the Sanitary Totilla Factory shut down cause their Sopapillas were great. The bodyguard was a former associate.

"Electric something or others crackle with light"

Rush, the Canucks

CKKQ RULES!!!

SAS OC

never heard of 'em

So what colour is the wooly pully draped over the chair at the office in the boathouse at Hereford?

black.

I remain from time to time BANNED BY THE BBC

and proud of it

Carp

p.p.s. not that there's ANYTHING wrong with your guys group leader ******** 8D.

"Master- is there a secret to funny?"

feline encapsulated cajones? anyone? Buehler? Buehler? his analysis yesterday was spot on ANDfunny'

"Master- is there a secret to funny?"

"Yes- silence."

if you can hear me son key your mic twice

Lillawaup store

And yet I'd consider her if she ran on the Beheading all Car Cell Phonists ticket.

Carp

my Monitor 4 kept going click click click from time to time around the Lillawaup store

good thing THEY knew it was either just a calibration error or grounds for a funny story.

corallary to earlier is

"Warriors can make good spooks."

your fiend, Carp

deleting all but buddies...begin holding breathe.............................................NOW!