As Newsbsuters has brought you many times (see here and here among others), the MSM's focus on Bush's firing of a handful of U.S. Attorney's is wonderfully empty of any balanced treatment whatsoever. Not only has the MSM ignored the Clinton story -- where he fired EVERY one of them -- but they have also ignored the fact that Jimmy Carter also fired a U.S. Attorney for "political reasons". Not to be left behind, the Boston Globe today reports an uncritical story about Senator Edward Kennedy's (D, Mass) recent statement about the issue.
In a short report by Globe Staffer, Rick Klein, the Globe finds no room for any discussion of Clinton or Carter's firings -- par for the course for this shallowly reported story.
WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy yesterday accused President Bush of using the Department of Justice to further his administration's "right-wing ideology," saying that veteran prosecutors were replaced by political operatives in key states to ensure that "reliable partisans" are in place in time for the 2008 presidential election.
The Globe quotes Kennedy as saying "at least two" of Bush's AGs were fired because they "refused to investigate spurious claims of voter fraud that were initiated by Republicans".
The piece also quotes Senator Patrick Leahy (D, Vt) to the effect that they will continue this witch hunt even if Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigns and Senator Chuck Schumer (D,NY) who is looking for a "smoking gun".
The story also reports that a former chief of staff to AG Gonzales will be "grilled" about this faux scandal.
Lawmakers said they plan to grill D. Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, about the firings and about the involvement of Gonzales and White House officials in the decision-making.
Lots of indignation there, eh?
And not a word from the other side of the issue for balance.
Of course, we on Newsbusters know that the ginning up of this "scandal" is all smoke and mirrors meant solely as an attack on president Bush, to weaken him and to further destroy the GOPs chances in 2008.
We also all know that every president has the Constitutional right to fire any or all the U.S. Attorneys just like Clinton did. But, it wasn't just Clinton, apparently. Even Jimmy Carter while in the White House fired an attorney that was making things too warm for one of the members of his party, making the action purely political in nature. And he lied about it to the people.
Human Events has a story detailing Carter's political firing of a U.S. Attorney in 1978: "Marston: Carter 'Lied Then, Lies Now' on U.S. Attorneys Firing".
Former President Jimmy Carter “lied then” about firing a U.S. attorney in 1978 investigating Democratic officials in Philadelphia and “lies now” in condemning the Bush Administration’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys and calling for Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales to go.
John Gizzi of Human Events reveals how unconcerned over this political firing a Democrat controlled Congress was in 1978.
What does Dave Marston think? “He’s trying to rewrite history,” was the response of the 64-year-old former prosecutor to the President who fired him. “Under the standard he has imposed on Gonzales, the President should have fired Atty. Gen. Griffin Bell in 1978.” Although it is so far unclear how much Gonzales knew about what the U.S. prosecutors were working on when they were forced out and what reasons were behind their exits, Marston pointed out that then-Rep. Joshua Eilberg (D.-Pa.) had actually called Carter on November 4, 1977 to demand Marston’s ouster and that the Prsident, in turn, called Bell and told him to “hurry up” in finding a new U.S. attorney in Philadelphia. Eilberg himself was the subject of a corruption probe by Marston’s office and, as Marston recalled to me, “the Justice Department was aware of this because I told Russell Baker [Bell’s top aide] that Eilberg was under investigation. And Russell Baker, who was a stand-up guy, confirmed this.”
A significant difference between his situation and those of the fired U.S. attorneys that Marston pointed out to me was that “Democrat controlled Congress in 1978 and did not investigate a Democratic President. Today, they control Congress and they will investigate the Republican Administration.”
And how president Carter lied about it... causing no furor.
In reviewing the transcript of Carter’s “Today” interview, Marston pointed out that the opening segment featured a clip of Carter from a news conference on January 12, 1978 in which he is asked about the Marston sacking and says: “I’ve not interfered at all.”
“That was on January 12th,” the former prosecutor pointed out, “and yet the evidence shows that he had called his attorney general about replacing me two months earlier.
Do you think we will see more on this story of Jimmy Carter firing a U.S. Attorney for political reasons in future stories about the Gonzales firings?
Yeah, I don't either.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why does the NewsBuster's i
March 29, 2007 - 10:55 ET by ding7777Why does the NewsBuster's ignore how Bush43 "accepted the resignations" (i.e, pc speak for firing them) of 92 of Clinton's USAs when he came into office in January 2001?.
Good point.(I, myself, didn't
March 29, 2007 - 10:57 ET by Warner Todd HustonGood point.(I, myself, didn't think of it)
But, it is STILL no scandal! Bush has every right to get rid of them.
And Bush would have fired non
March 29, 2007 - 11:06 ET by ding7777And Bush would have fired none of them if he knew he would need Senate confirmation for a replacement. At least that loophole has been closed because of this.
. . . . and how do you know
March 29, 2007 - 17:29 ET by Gat New York. . . . and how do you know that? Or is this part of the new MSM neo-journalism selective facts development?
Gat New York - You might read
March 30, 2007 - 08:26 ET by ding7777Gat New York - You might read the actual emails that Kyle Sampson wrote. Here's but one sample to get you on your way. From Sampson's December 6, 2006 email:
“And Bush would have fired
March 30, 2007 - 10:33 ET by Gat New York“And Bush would have fired none of them . . “ That was your quote. What you are quoting is Sampson’s email, which was his assessment. So we return to your statement that factually declares that Bush would not have fired them.
Gat New York - I gave my
March 30, 2007 - 13:58 ET by ding7777Gat New York - I gave my opinion that Bush would not have fired them. Sampson's testimony on 3/29/2006 supports my opinion.
Every President has a right t
March 29, 2007 - 11:01 ET by Gat New YorkEvery President has a right to terminate U.S. attorneys for whatever reason they deem appropriate - Democrat or Republican. Why are Democrats investigating this? Because since coming into the majority they are systematically engaging in the widest ranging political witch hunt in modern history. I hope they continue because American taxpayers will drive them from office for abusing their power.
Yet Another Troll Broadcast
March 29, 2007 - 11:13 ET by emjem24Why does ding7777 not see the hypocrisy in CLINTOON firing most of the USA's at the beginning of HIS administration? Why is it okay for ding7777 to agree with what Clinton did but not what Pres. Bush did? Could it be that ding777 is a victim of MSM hysteria? No, no, ding7777, you don't sound like a liberal, idiotic troll at all. Excuse while I laugh myself silly over your nonsensical remarks.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
silly
March 29, 2007 - 11:35 ET by iveseenitallLiberal "rules" and liberal "ideas" are for YOU, ejem. Nothing applies to them, silly.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
emjem - Clinton requested the
March 29, 2007 - 14:18 ET by ding7777emjem - Clinton requested the resignations of all his predecessors USAs - so did Bush43 when he came into office. There is no difference in that regard (except that the conservative news typically fails to mentions that Bush43 also fired 92 of Clinton's appointees - I wonder why?).
What is different is Bush firing 8 USAs that he himself appointed, while trying to get replacements appointed by circumventing the Senate confirmation process.
By this do you imply that it
March 29, 2007 - 17:34 ET by Gat New YorkBy this do you imply that it is illegal or even unethical for a sitting President to terminate a U.S. Attorney that he appoints? I also noticed that until the conservative news outlets reported Clinton's firing of 92 attorneys the MSM failed to emphasize it and instead left an initial impression that the firing of U.S. Attorneys by a President was unusual and unethical.
Gat New York - There you go a
March 30, 2007 - 08:53 ET by ding7777Gat New York - There you go again. Confusing what is standard - normal - customary (i.e, asking for resignations at the beginning of a change in administrations) with what is not standard - normal -customary.
Normal = what Reagan, Clinton, and Bush43 did (firing USAs appointed by their predecessors at the beiginning ot their terms).
Not Normal = Bush43 doing a wholesale firing of USAs he himself appointed for purely political reasons. (Note: In the past 25 years, 5 USAs were fired for conduct/performance related issues)
Now all Bush has to do is find 8 USAs who are able to get Senate confirmation - and they will not be political hacks like Tim Griffen in Arkansas
"what is not standard
March 30, 2007 - 09:41 ET by MightyMouth"what is not standard - normal -customary"
Yeah, but was it legal and necessary (from the presidents view)? If it was both, then you are making a non issue, an issue. Which means you(and others) have a motive to do so. I suspect your motive is pure hate (as in bush hate).
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MightyMouth - Then why is Alb
March 30, 2007 - 15:01 ET by ding7777MightyMouth - Then why is Alberto Gonzales and company having a hard time coming up the "legal and necessary" reason.
Don't ask me, It's legal fo
March 30, 2007 - 16:38 ET by MightyMouthDon't ask me, It's legal for the president to dismiss them for whatever reason he wants. I have even heard that they can be dismissed for no reason, other than the president wants to give someone else the job!
They were being dismissed becaue the president finds it necessary, thats all that is required. Prove me wrong.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
standard-normal-customary . .
March 30, 2007 - 10:42 ET by Gat New Yorkstandard-normal-customary . . . since that does not exist in any code of laws then that standard is irrelevant - even if it is a made-up standard by left wing pundits. It is also irrelevant since circumstances changed since 9/11. The President's primary resopnsibility is national security and if a U.S. attorney does not feel compelled to support the President's desire to more aggressively prosecute illegal aliens then the President has every right to replace that attorney.
Gat New York - According to t
March 30, 2007 - 14:51 ET by ding7777Gat New York - According to the US office of Personnel Management:
By illegal aliens, do you mean Mexican immigrants? What exactly does that have to do with 9/11? And how could the USAs in Arkansas, Michigan and Washington state do anything about border protection?
The customarily argument do
March 30, 2007 - 16:43 ET by MightyMouthThe customarily argument doesn't wash. Hell it's not even a precedent! Other attornys have been fired mid term. Like I said you are making an issue from a non-issue! When will you kids get over bubba's impeachment?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
That has to do with President
March 30, 2007 - 17:17 ET by Gat New YorkThat has to do with Presidential transition – you haven’t made your point because there is no point. People serve at the President’s pleasure (and every one of them can be fired at the will of the President).
Apparently you have not been following the events of post 9/11. You may have noticed that we were able to stop more terror events by people coming over the border from Canada. So why not Mexico?
The ability of the 9/11 terrorist to easily enter our country, take up residence and even use our airline training schools was far too easy and requires stiffer measures on the part of law enforcement and without discrimination to any one group of people. That is why we need greater enforcement of our borders. If you question that then I would refer you to the pandering putzes in your Party who have tried to use that against Bush.
I was giving the most visible example of one of the firings which was in California and actually requested by one of your Senators out there. In regard to the others, what were the reasons given for Clinton firing 93 of them? The answer is the President can fire every one of the U.S. Attorneys for whatever reason he chooses. He has broken no laws or committed any ethics violations.
But the good news is the longer your leaders keep up this witch hunt, the shorter we have to deal with Speaker Pelosi. And that is based on historical fact.
hey ding
March 30, 2007 - 17:25 ET by misterbillhey ding- it's Friday afternoon--it's been a long week--why don't you just shut up and go away for the weekend. You are like a boil on the butt. Go play in the libtards yards for a couple of days.
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
by circumventing the Senate c
March 29, 2007 - 20:12 ET by dahliatraversby circumventing the Senate confirmation process.
Your complaint needs to be lodged with the United States Congress. Far from being an illegal or nefarious act on the President's part, it was Congress that knowingly enabled the President to by-pass the Senate for his appointments. I understand they are in the process of changing this to status quo ante.
Your comment about "conservative news" failing to mention that Bush fired Clintons's appointees is pretty funny inasmuch as 90% of news sources that reach 90% of the public is distinctly left of center. Your comment is, therefore, a nullity.
My opinion of this tempest in a teapot is that it was in a small way mishandled by the AG and the White House, who should not have misstated the reasons for these firings and who knew what when. The President was perfectly within his right to do what he did and no amount of puffing and innuendo on anyone's part can change that fact. But the initial misstep has enabled the Dems and the msm to create a "scandal" literally out of thin air.
Because, many Presidents fi
March 30, 2007 - 15:41 ET by ChumlyBecause, many Presidents fire the whole lot. Nothing new there. No precedent set there. The DIFFERENCE is that to weed out a few prosecutors that are not supporting your political party sufficiently, is against your best interest (you being the patriotic American). Using the US Attorny's office (that is, yours and mine) to stamp out any and all opposition to a single particular political party is fascist. It is very bad for our country. It is what was done in the former USSR and China.
We (ALL of us) cannot let this kind of thing take place in our great country.If a president feels that an
March 30, 2007 - 15:53 ET by bassndudeIf a president feels that an attorney is not fulfilling his obligation to prosecute criminals to the presidents satisfaction, it is the presidents option to fire them. Reasons dont really matter. They serve at the pleasure of the president. I dident scream when clinton fired all of them. Well, all but one anyway. You have no reason to cry now...boo hoo hoo! Bogus crap.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Hey bass, I am going bassin
March 30, 2007 - 16:31 ET by ChumlyHey bass, I am going bassin in my canoe in about an hour, after work. Can't wait.
I think you are right that they can fire them for any reason. However, that doesn't do us any good if they do. Especially if it can be shown that they were doing it for political reasons - to consolidate political power in one party. THAT subverts our system.
In the last 25 years, 2 attornys have been fired (outside of the typical house cleaning that takes place upon taking office by many of our Presidents). Gonzales fired 8 of them at once. That is a huge precedent.
The job of the attorny's is to uphold the constitution first and foremost. They serve the President second.
If Gonzales had nothing to hide, why did he lie about it?? Did you hear his chief of staff yesterday. He said that his boss lied (in so many words). If the top lawman in the county had no reason to lie, I am guessing that he would choose not ta.
Chumly, even Pelosi was compl
March 30, 2007 - 16:41 ET by bassndudeChumly, even Pelosi was complaining about the attorney in her district directly to the president. That is, untill they fired him, now she is all upset about it. Not. She is spewing her bile just like every other democrat. The fact is, they were not doing their jobs. Pelosi wanted the one fired. Said so. So what changed her mind?
BTW, luck with the fish. Its storming here today tho. Lightning, and lots of it. Do plan on a trip this weekend tho..at least one day on the lake. Two if I can swing it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I haven't followed the Pelo
March 30, 2007 - 16:52 ET by ChumlyI haven't followed the Pelosi thing that you mentioned. But, I did hear that most of the fired attornies had all or mosly all gotten positive reviews by their supperiors.
This is my first bass fishing in decades. Did a lot of it in high school when we lived near a pond with lots of large mouths in it. I am going to a lake that has a bass preserve area on it. The whole upper portion of the reservoir is off limits to power boats and there is not fishing from shore. The good thing about it is that the reservoir is on my way home from work.
Sadly, Bass, she'll get away with it.
March 30, 2007 - 16:55 ET by RJYeah, I heard about that, too, Bass. Wrote a letter last year complaining about Lamb, but now claims she's one of the top immigration attorneys. Sadly, she'll get away with her two faced hypocricy. But that's a perfect example of what a politically motivated witch hunt this has been.
From the NY Times: "While
March 29, 2007 - 12:25 ET by blarsenFrom the NY Times:
"While wholesale dismissals as administrations turn over are not unusual, and individual United States attorneys have occasionally been pushed out over scandals, the recent mass dismissal, on vague and shifting rationales, is unheard of in living memory."
Quoting the NY Times is lik
March 30, 2007 - 09:34 ET by MightyMouthQuoting the NY Times is like quoting the National Inquirer. In other words, who cares? Trying to call the president on a perfectly legal and proper action is at the least disingenuous, and at the worst, total BDS.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
If the NY Times said it, then
March 29, 2007 - 13:29 ET by entIf the NY Times said it, then it must be true.
I read somewhere else that such widespread firings were, in fact, not common before Clinton. That he actually set the precedent. Can anyone confirm or refutre this for me?
Thanks.
ent - according to the elde
March 30, 2007 - 09:24 ET by ding7777ent - according to the elder Bush's outgoing Attorney General, Stuart M. Gerson:
. . . . Interesting that you
March 30, 2007 - 10:44 ET by Gat New York. . . . Interesting that you did not starter wth Carter.
Gat New York - believe it or
March 30, 2007 - 14:56 ET by ding7777Gat New York - believe it or not, the internet "tubes" rarely have political archives prior to 1993. The only reason I found Gerson's quote was because it was recent.