CBS finally picked up the Clinton administration’s record of firing 93 federal prosecutors, but they still rushed to Clinton’s defense with false assertions. On the March 15 edition of "The Early Show," reporter Bill Plante sought to make this distinction between the Bush and Clinton firings.
"Mr. Bush isn't the first president to fire US attorneys and replace them with his own appointments. At the beginning of his first term, President Clinton cleaned house, ousting all 93 US attorneys. Not unusual, they serve at the pleasure of the president. The difference this time, the charge that politics played a role in their dismissal."
Not true. The Washington Post reported on March 26, 1993 that Republicans did charge politics in President Clinton’s mass firing. An excerpt from the article:
President Clinton yesterday attempted to rebut Republican criticism of the administration's decision to seek resignations from all U.S. attorneys, saying what he was asking was routine and less political than piecemeal replacements.
"All those people are routinely replaced and I have not done anything differently," Clinton told reporters during a photo opportunity in the Oval Office. He called the decision more politically appropriate "than picking people out one by one."
But Republicans in Congress pressed their criticism of the decision, announced Tuesday by Attorney General Janet Reno, with Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) describing the decision as "Reno's March Massacre."
Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) urged the administration to allow Jay B. Stephens, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to stay on the job until he completes his investigation of the House Post Office scandal and the role House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) may have played in it.
Stephens said Tuesday he was about a month away from "a critical decision with regard to resolution" of the probe.
The transcript of the entire story is below.
HANNAH STORM: Thanks, Russ. There are growing calls for the president to get rid of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the wake of the prosecutor firing scandal. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has more on that. Good morning, Bill."
BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Hannah. That's right, all the Democrats on Capitol Hill and at least one Republican want the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales for the way the handling of the firing of those U.S. attorneys took place. The president is defending Gonzales for now, but he's leaving himself room to change his mind, if necessary.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH: Mistakes were made and I'm frankly not happy about them. Because there is a lot of confusion over what really has been a customary practice by the president.
PLANTE: Democrats in Congress charge at least some of the eight US attorneys were fired for political reasons. The president denied that and said that he told Gonzales he needs to set the record straight.
BUSH: We talked about his need to go up to Capitol Hill and make it very clear to members in both political parties why the Justice Department made the decisions it made.
PLANTE: Congressional Democrats are threatening to subpoena former White House counsel Harriet Miers and political counselor Karl Rove.
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): We just want all the facts to come out. If some bad things were done, they should come to light.
PLANTE: Mr. Bush isn't the first president to fire US attorneys and replace them with his own appointments. At the beginning of his first term, President Clinton cleaned house, ousting all 93 US attorneys. Not unusual, they serve at the pleasure of the president. The difference this time, the charge that politics played a role in their dismissal.
FORMER US ATTORNEY JOHN MCKAY: I asked for the reasons that I was being asked to resign and I was given no reasons.
PLANTE: Former US attorney John McKay was fired in December for reasons that he now believes had nothing to do with the way he did his job, but everything to do with how he didn't play politics.
MCKAY: Any individual prosecutor is replaceable. What's not replaceable is our reputation for fairness, our reputation for independence from political influences.
PLANTE: The 93 U.S. Attorneys are the government's prosecutors.
ANDREW COHEN, CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: They are the backbone of the federal legal system because they take the policies and the laws and they implement them and they enforce them.
PLANTE: The question now is whether the White House will allow Miers, the former counsel, and Rove to testify. Fred Fielding, who is now the White House counsel, went to Capitol Hill yesterday. He's a veteran of Watergate and Iran-Contra, to see what could be worked out. So we'll wait and find out soon, Hannah.
—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well, that may be true. I did
March 15, 2007 - 10:55 ET by bassndudeWell, that may be true. I dident think that the firings were political. I knew they were political.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Clinton wasn't political?! C
March 15, 2007 - 10:58 ET by TruthMongerClinton wasn't political?! Can we get his salary back for not doing his job then:)?
pol·i·tics (pl-tks)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb)
a. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
b. Political science.
WTF
March 15, 2007 - 11:00 ET by ltcolusmcretThese MSM scum are maggot-ridden, hair-ball filled, dogs. Not political!!! Balderdash! Everything the demodawgs do is political. I know. I was a yellow-dog Democrat for a long time...till I grew up.
Is there a problem with polit
March 15, 2007 - 11:06 ET by TruthMongerIs there a problem with politicians being political? Please help me out on this one folks...
pol·i·tics (pl-tks)n.
The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: "All politics is local" Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. "Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night" Jeffrey Archer.
b. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/politics
Don't be shy
March 16, 2007 - 22:56 ET by nkviking75Lt. Colonel, don't be shy. Tell us what you really think! :-)
Why in the world is the adm
March 15, 2007 - 11:06 ET by MightyMouthWhy in the world is the administration trying to pussy foot around the word "political". Damn near everything that is done on the Hill is political in nature. And the disingenuous dems are throwing "political" around like it's a dirty word. Politics is their bread and butter for gosh sakes!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
...right on, mon!pol·i·tics
March 15, 2007 - 11:12 ET by TruthMonger...right on, mon!
pol·i·tics (pl-tks)n.
(used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political life: studied law with a view to going into politics; felt that politics was a worthwhile career. 4. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power:
although Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government. Office politics are often debilitating and counterproductive. Oh-oh...
http://www.thefreedi...
DUH...
March 15, 2007 - 11:42 ET by ConspiracyIf Clinton's decision to clean house wasn't political--what was it? A whim? Did he see a fortune teller?
Serving at the President's pleasure inherently means he can fire you for any reason--even a political reason. Is that true? Why is Alberto Gonzales speak up?--and not to apologize.
Funny how people are now jump
March 15, 2007 - 13:55 ET by dahliatraversFunny how people are now jumping to defend Clinton's removals, though somehow Bush's were "bad, bad!" Appointments are the very essence of political. To the victor goes the spoils. It's absurd to say that Bush's removals were political but Clinton's were not.
Politics
March 15, 2007 - 23:24 ET by pbthinkerOf course Clinton's removals were political and they were smart politics. He got the people in there that would do what he wanted them to do. This crap that Bush wanted to set a "new tone" in Washington and leave Clinton's attorney's around was just a load of..... For a guy the press loves to term as political, George Bush is amateur city compared to Clinton.
Of course, it helps to have the MSM on your side. They ask Clinton about politics, he says of course not, and they say Ok, a one day story out of the way. How long has this been going on?
Bush should just come out and say he's sick of the Democrats playing politics with everything and, if they really want to set the rules this way, God help them when they ever win an election again. They're the ones setting new precedents here and the President should just call them on it.
No one thought Clinton's firi
March 15, 2007 - 12:30 ET by mattmNo one thought Clinton's firings were political? And these are the same people calling Bush a liar???? What sheer idiocy!
It wasn't political, it was
March 15, 2007 - 12:36 ET by kgIt wasn't political, it was necessary. Otherwise he stood a good chance of going to jail not to mention the rise in legal fees.
Bill Plante is dead wrong
March 15, 2007 - 12:40 ET by Gary HallJustin. Plante is just dead wrong in his asertion that "no-one" thought the Clinton firings were political. Although the media coverage was very thin (one story here - one there - none elsewhere), the MRC and NB has well documented that the MSM did cover the story and could not manage to hide the obvious political nature of the firings:
All of these major MSM outlets clearly saw the political angle behind the firings. What's with Bill Plante - cannot he even read plain English?
Thanks for doing all the wo
March 16, 2007 - 05:27 ET by sarcasmoThanks for doing all the work (again!) Gary. And to your sources I can add my somewhat-feeble memory of Ms. Reno's failed attempt to save her Dade County Republican friend during President Lippo's hyperpolitical purge.
JMR
No ONE thought the firings of
March 15, 2007 - 12:43 ET by bigtimerNo ONE thought the firings of 93 US Attorney's from the WH in '93 were political?
The Clintoon era still rides with the wind-bags....
Plante are you serious....surely you jest...surely you do not really expect anyone to believe this BS do you...seriously...
I am laughing so hard it is taking forever to post this....
What an idiot...not political...
Bwhahahahaaa...too hysterically funny...
Even the moonbats out there couldn't seriously believe that....
Oh puhleeeze this is so funny!
So far this has been a bright sunshiny deliciously funny day....hope it stays the same...guess it will as long as their are crazy leftists out their opening their mouths and inserting their feet.
LMAO!
The power to hire and fire
March 15, 2007 - 14:59 ET by kiwikitis the responsibility of any boss and who's a higher boss than the President of the United States? I think they should fire all the rest of the lawyers as well, matching Clinton's having done so. They don't seem to be doing much to fight the terrorists' lovers (NYT, WAPO, ABC, NBC, .....) anyway!
another great story.this guy
March 15, 2007 - 15:06 ET by buddycanother great story.
this guy can't have a clue. do they just show up in front of the camera and read what some political officer from the dnc, gives him? of course the the clinton action was political.
but at least clinton handled it better than bush did. where is the backbone of our conservative leadership?
If there's one thing we all h
March 15, 2007 - 20:06 ET by KenoIf there's one thing we all have learned over the years, it's this...everything the Clinton's did was POLITICAL! How can a reporter with the tenure of Bill Plante seriously suggest that no one thought that way?
Unprecedented
March 15, 2007 - 21:05 ET by shawn228People are looking at this differently because just like Reagan, Clinton fired most of his attorneys at the beginning of his term. Bush might be the first to fire attorneys during the 2nd term of his Presidency.
People are also upset because it seems 2 senators tried to strong arm an attorney into hurrying to build a case before the mid-term elections. Another of the attorneys was one that convicted Randy Duke Cunningham.
Also if they are fired, let the public know why the reason is, instead of saying it was poor job performance. From what I have seen and heard, almost all of them got strong performance reviews.
We just don't know
March 15, 2007 - 23:31 ET by pbthinkerThe beauty of what the Democrats do is plant these little seeds of doubt. This attorney convicted Duke Cunningham so it must be politics. They had good performance reviews, what does that mean? What is usually means is they didn't have "bad" performance reviews.
The attorney, claiming he was strong armed by a couple of Senators, may have been. He also, may have been holding off on filing any charges until the elections were over, or slowing down the investigation for political reasons of his own, we just don't know.
In the long run, it makes little difference, the President is well within his rights to fire 8 or 80, should he so desire. He is also within his rights to have attorneys that share his vision as to what is important to investigate. The Washington State situation is the best example. There, you had an election that had a lot of questions raised and the U.S. Attorney didn't investigate. Why?
Not many people disagre
March 15, 2007 - 23:45 ET by shawn228Not many people disagree that US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. It is how this was handled. The White house said initially that the attorneys were fired for poor job performance. They also said it was not political and they had no involvement in the firings. We now know this was not true. Its like peeling an onion. The AG would not be admitting "mistakes were made" if everything was hunky dory. If the GOP truly has nothing to hide they should not fear Karl Rove or Harriet Miers testifying on the hill.
So, what does it matter? It
March 16, 2007 - 03:46 ET by gordonSo, what does it matter? Its a complete non-issue. Besides, it takes the Democrats' time away from crafting their non-binding "surrender now" resolution writing contest. You have a lot of nerve, criticising the Republican administration for misleading the public when the Dems are on the floor of the House and Senate, telling lies about their support for the troops as fast as they can make them up. The Dems just won't give up, unless its in Iraq of course.
Gordan, instead of poin
March 16, 2007 - 10:28 ET by shawn228Gordan, instead of pointing at the evil democrats, you should focus on the situation at hand. We are not talking about democrat lies or Clinton firing 93 attorneys now are we?
It is not a non issue. Make no mistake the AG is fighting for his job. Republicans are also calling for his resignation and the ones that are not are only giving him lukewarm support. Like I said if there is nothing to hide why not let whomever testify?
OK shawn228, focus on the issue at hand.
March 16, 2007 - 10:40 ET by acaiguanaOK shawn228, focus on the issue at hand.
A buncha racist Democrats who cannot stand an Hispanic in the AG job; who are waging a war to marginalize the President of the United States from the people and his Party; who basically have nothing better to do than to politicize everything from the War in Iraq to the firing of 8 lousy government attorney generals; who are so full of angst over Clinton being impeached; who smell blood in the water for the Presidency; and who want to destroy our security by repeal of the Patriot Act (dancing in the halls); all of this.
Of course, should not detract from the situation at hand, huh?
The issue at hand of course is a total non-issue except politically when painted as an embarassment to the President who would be ceding serious separation of power rights to send one single person to testify in front of the Kangaroo Court called a Democrat Political Agenda Driven Committee.
Get it?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ACA...BINGO!I thought witch h
March 16, 2007 - 10:46 ET by Clear thinkerACA...
BINGO!
I thought witch hunting was outlawed years ago?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
I think Ken Starr set t
March 16, 2007 - 10:56 ET by shawn228I think Ken Starr set the precedent
No, it was Clinton that set t
March 16, 2007 - 10:59 ET by Clear thinkerNo, it was Clinton that set the precedent!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Ummm, could you tell me
March 16, 2007 - 20:49 ET by shawn228Ummm, could you tell me which Clinton witch hunt you are referrring to?
Hi ACAThis has nothing
March 16, 2007 - 10:55 ET by shawn228Hi ACA
This has nothing to do with race, the dems would be going after Ashcroft if he was attorney general as well.
If the White Houseadmitted their role in the firings from the beginning this would not be happenning. They also said Karl Rove was involved when "the email" says otherwise. I am willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, but I think Karl and Harriet should testify and prove their innocence. Have to go to work now, Have a good day. ACA
Naw, shawn228, it has everything to do with racist Democrats.
March 16, 2007 - 11:00 ET by acaiguanaNaw, shawn228, it has everything to do with racist Democrats.
They are all racist.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I respectfully disagree
March 16, 2007 - 20:51 ET by shawn228I respectfully disagree ACA. Dems are more tolerent than even I am comfortable with. ie, affirmative action. I disagree with it, but most Dems are for it. They are also for Gay Marriage, when I am uncomfortable with it.
Why would you say Dems are racist?
It should be obvious the root rasicsm of the Democrat politicia
March 17, 2007 - 13:46 ET by acaiguanaIt should be obvious the root rasicsm of the Democrat politicians
But aside from that, why do you think Affirmative Action is 'tolerance'? I disagree to the maximum degree.
It certainly is not tolerant to the victims of it. It certainly isn't good for the so-called beneficiaries of it. It is a horrible racist program.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Affirmative action is a
March 17, 2007 - 20:08 ET by shawn228Affirmative action is a terrrible idea, but in the minds of Dems, it gives minorities an equal chance. I never said I agreed with it.
Dems however are responsible for minorities by passing civil rights, and helping women have the same rights as men. No sarcasm hear ACA, I would really like to hear from you why you think that Dems are going after Gonzales because he is hispanic and other examples of Democratic racism.
Duh! The answer to your ques
March 17, 2007 - 13:31 ET by EvokeDuh! The answer to your question is in your own post. Affirmative action IS racist.