As always, thank you for taking the time to read my post and to write a response. The more dialogue and discussion and debate we have on this topic the better. It is true that Janet Reno, as her predecessors before her had done, asked for the resignations of U.S. Attorneys. This is standard operating procedure designed to allow the President to have in place his own federal prosecutors. What is different about this current episode is that a Republican White House sought to replace Republican-appointed federal prosecutors mid-stream who were by all accounts doing precisely what they had been asked to do. We now know, from last week’s testimony, why in some cases this was so and the answers we got make it clear that the reasons were not high-minded or lofty.
Of course, Cohen got it wrong yet again. In 1993, Clinton's attorney general did not just show President George H.W. Bush's appointees the door, she pushed them through it and told them not to let it hit them on the way out.
As Michael Isikoff reported in the March 24, 1993, Washington Post, Reno's press conference had called for the "immediate resignation of all U.S. attorneys so they can be replaced by Clinton appointees." Reno denied that the abrupt action would harm the federal government's case against Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), insisting that an interim prosecutor could just as ably handle the case.
Isikoff's colleague at the Post, Dan Balz, reported on March 23, 1993, that the Reno/Clinton move was an abrupt forced resignation, adding that Republicans noted that previous administrations gradually eased out old U.S. attorneys with their replacements in a case-by-case fashion.
Isikoff's article also noted that Reno took time in her March 23 news conference to push for adoption of legislation before the Democratically-controlled Congress to stiffen federal penalties for protesters who block abortion clinics.
In other words, Reno's announcement was made in a politics-rich environment, tucked in a news conference filled with policy pronouncements favorable to the Clinton camp's liberal base.
As we've previously reported, however, there was no media outrage about the Clinton/Reno mass firing.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Bush I Assistant AG, Stuart G
March 14, 2007 - 14:19 ET by waka wakaBush I Assistant AG, Stuart Gerson, in today's WaPo online chat ...
It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Yes, you replace them in th
March 14, 2007 - 14:31 ET by Ken ShepherdYes, you replace them in the first term, usually in the first few months of the term, but not in an abrupt, "clean your desks out by noon" manner that Reno did. That's an important factor to consider here. That's why the 1993 announcement was dramatic and valid for comparison with the dismissal of 8 U.S. attorneys here.
Keep in mind the record shows Gonzales dismissed the notion of canning all 93 at once, which is something Harriet Miers floated. Instead they did a lengthy review process whereby input was sought from various legislators. Indeed, the legislative input is a point of contention to liberal Democratic critics, although at every other turn liberal Democrats have assailed the Bush administration for being arrogant and dismissive of legislative input.
KS -- just trying to follow l
March 14, 2007 - 14:45 ET by Jack BauerKS -- just trying to follow lib***l "logic" here.
It's prefectly okay for President Clinton to fire 93 Attorneys (he didn't apppoint) -- most of whom must have been reasonably competent. So it must have been for 'political reasons' why they were fired.
But... it's somehow wrong for President Bush to fire 8 attorneys he did appoint.
Guess that's lib***l illogic for you. And mendacity, of course.
Following your logic, it's OK
March 14, 2007 - 15:05 ET by MobiusStripFollowing your logic, it's OK to hire a police force, then fire officers when they start knocking on the "wrong" doors. That's what this is about.
Schumer is at the podium bi--
March 14, 2007 - 17:07 ET by JDWSchumer is at the podium bi--itching about the 8 dismals, where was he and when did he call down Clinton for deposing the 93?
JDW
Wounded skier, beware of mistakes.
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
All eight dimissed lawyers we
March 14, 2007 - 14:58 ET by MobiusStripAll eight dimissed lawyers were originally hired under the Bush administration. They were subpeoned by Congress- they did not go there to "grandstand" as some righty pundits put it, and many refused to do so until they were required. When their testimonies produced a pattern of coercion and interference, this was acknowledged by the resignation of Gonzalez's tight hand man.
On Tuesday, Gonzales said the lawyers should have been told why they were being fired and admitted the explanations initially given to Congress about the matter were "incomplete."
Past administrations have removed U.S. attorneys, and it's their right to do so, Bush said on Tuesday.
I imagine US Attorneys are smart people: the AG is by inference. WHen Gonzalez admits he made a mistake or two, you can bet he understands the legal implications of the "mistake". So Sampson's head rolls real fast. Curiouser and curiouser.
Ken said:
March 14, 2007 - 14:59 ET by Sonny Lykos"Yes, you replace them in the first term, usually in the first few months of the term, but not in an abrupt, "clean your desks out by noon" manner that Reno did. That's an important factor to consider here. "
I do not agree. The President can fire any of them when ever he decides, regardless if it's at the beginning of his term, the middle, the end, whenever.
An issue at the heart of this
March 14, 2007 - 15:14 ET by MobiusStripAn issue at the heart of this is the first time use of a Patriot Act provision, which allows the President to appoint USAs without the trditional input from the Senate. This can have sinister implications, when combined with the fact that the President can fire any of them, at any time- but without Senate input. That input has been historically bipartisan. What makes this a scandal- with a resignation, mind you- is that it smacks of a cya strategy for cover-ups. If you can tell me why we had some of the people put in Iraq with no credentials other than pure loyalty to the administration, then you can explain the reach of loyalty here, too. But USAs are required to be impartial. Not loyal. Hence scandal.
The implication that people
March 14, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Ken ShepherdThe implication that people were fired for not being toadies is an allegation the left will raise and the media should report as liberal opinion, not as objective fact. If a USA is not doing his job by not pursuing cases that the Bush DOJ wants focused on (immigration, drugs, porn), then they can and should be canned by Bush.
For a president and his prosecutors its about loyalty to a policy of prosecuting aggressively certain crimes.
When you look at the complaints legislators lodged, it was often about attorneys failing to take serious some federal crimes that the Bush administration has deemed worthy of vigorous enforcement.
The most important factor to
March 14, 2007 - 14:20 ET by JDWThe most important factor to consider is why were these attorneys not permitted to serve the remainder of their terms before being dismissed?
JDW
Wounded skier, beware of mistakes.
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Good question. The Bush Admin
March 14, 2007 - 14:22 ET by Agnostic frontGood question. The Bush Administration is saying, "Wll, Clinton did it," on one hand, but saying on the other hand, these firings were not politically motivated. Well, which is it? Did they get fired for political reasons or because they were not doing their jobs?
Well, would it be a scandal
March 14, 2007 - 14:27 ET by MightyMouthWell, would it be a scandal if political appointess where fired for political reasons? I think not. So what's the fuss?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
AF/MMThey were bounced to pre
March 14, 2007 - 14:35 ET by JDWAF/MM
They were bounced to prevent anyone of them from implicating the Clintons.
JDW
Wounded skier, beware of mistakes.
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
question
March 14, 2007 - 14:32 ET by AuH2OmanHere's my question for anyone interested in answering: Does the President and/or the AG have the authority to "fire" anyone of these attorneys at any time they wish or not. If they do as I assume, why is there such a hellabuloo. Let's talk about Sandy Berger and the documents he destroyed, or how about the missing FBI files HRC "lost" for 18 months.
The president can fire them.
March 14, 2007 - 14:38 ET by JDWThe president can fire them. Normally if they are dismissed it is customary to do so at the end of their term.
JDW
Wounded skier, beware of mistakes.
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
The answer is both. Seven of
March 14, 2007 - 14:40 ET by waka wakaThe answer is both. Seven of them were fired for political reasons because they weren't doing their "jobs" of ignoring Republican corruption and/or bringing bogus "voter-fraud" charges against Democrats ahead of the 06 elections. The eighth, in Arkansas, was fired to make way for Turdblossom's buddy.
And Clinton never did "it." His U.S. atty's were allowed to serve out their full terms.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
"Seven of them were fi
March 14, 2007 - 14:45 ET by MightyMouth"Seven of them were fired for political reasons because they weren't
doing their "jobs" of ignoring Republican corruption and/or bringing
bogus "voter-fraud" charges against Democrats"
Another drive by? Or can you point out the "Republican corruption" they were ignoring?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I certainly agree that the
March 14, 2007 - 14:49 ET by sarcasmoI certainly agree that the Bush cases look political -- especially the Turdblossom's-buddy case (otoh, Democrat voter-fraud is either a problem, or there's sure a lot of smoke for allegedly-no-fire!). But as far as the fantasy of Slick never doing "it," well, your memory's sure-short today, 'cus he sure as hell tried... :)
JMR
Sorry, wiki wiki, but you're
March 14, 2007 - 17:15 ET by Del DolemonteSorry, wiki wiki, but you're lying again.
http://stubbornfacts.us/politics/partisanship/political_profiling_study_is_fatally_flawed
i need some help on this. h
March 14, 2007 - 14:38 ET by buddyci need some help on this. here are a list of republicans who got nailed by bush's justice department during the 1 year period prior to the 2006 election:
curt weldon
cunningham
c. burn
delay
abramhoff (not republican but associated with them)
the ohio governor (?)
a house member in ohio (?)
Here are some democrats who had legal and/or ethical issues that could have been criminally investigated but were not pushed:
rep jefferson
rep murtha
sen reid
sen schumer (violating candidate steele's right of credit privacy)
rep kennedy
rep mackinny (sp)
sandy burgler
If bush was playing politics with his justice department it was done in the most incompetent way imaginable.
what am i missing. how can the press be pushing this stuff. i thought bush was way too kind to democrats in the criminal investigation area.
Dude, Democrats, liberals, an
March 14, 2007 - 15:21 ET by stanleygoodspeedDude ... Democrats, liberals, and the MSM are run by the Devil himself. They think, speak, and act as they are moved by his minions.
I wish some of the 93 would
March 14, 2007 - 15:45 ET by CrimsonfistedI wish some of the 93 would come forward to shed some light and perspective on all this, if only to at least shut up Hillary. And my moonbat friends and family. I am hearing such NONSENSE in my house over this.
WhatAMaroon
I read somewhere that such m
March 16, 2007 - 12:21 ET by entI read somewhere that such mass firings were, in fact, not a routine affair when presidents change office, and that, in fact, it had never occurred before the Clinton affair. Can someone positively confirm or refute this for me? Thanks.