Attorney General
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
Was debating whether to get a few more sucked in on this one sided reporting--before dropping the hammer--but what the hell
Let me give you a little info on subject you won't find on Cnn and other networks/blogs and then let me know if it changes your opinion any---you need to watch a more "fair and balanced" network--and you wouldn't being getting in these traps daily
How the Media Covered U.S. Attorney Firings
Tuesday , March 13, 200
Recent Precedent
News stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office in 1993.
The only sitting U.S. attorney Clinton did not cashier was Michael Chertoff, now the Bush Homeland Security Secretary. At the time Chertoff was U.S. attorney in New Jersey and then Democratic Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey intervened to save Chertoff's job. None of this was noted, even in passing, in front-page stories today in The New York Times and Washington Post, or in the AP's story on the subject.
By the way, the mass Clinton firings generated some news stories, some complaints from Republicans in Congress, but no Congressional investigations, and not a word from Chuck Schumer.
Let me give you a little info on subject you won't find on Cnn and other networks/blogs and then let me know if it changes your opinion any---you need to watch a more "fair and balanced" network--and you wouldn't being getting in these traps daily
How the Media Covered U.S. Attorney Firings
Tuesday , March 13, 200
Recent Precedent
News stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office in 1993.
The only sitting U.S. attorney Clinton did not cashier was Michael Chertoff, now the Bush Homeland Security Secretary. At the time Chertoff was U.S. attorney in New Jersey and then Democratic Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey intervened to save Chertoff's job. None of this was noted, even in passing, in front-page stories today in The New York Times and Washington Post, or in the AP's story on the subject.
By the way, the mass Clinton firings generated some news stories, some complaints from Republicans in Congress, but no Congressional investigations, and not a word from Chuck Schumer.
these are all political appointees.....political patronage appointments....it`s all political....
it was for president clinton when he fired all 93.......and it should have been for bush...
the only real problem is that bush failed to clean house when he took office.....and that was foolish.....and cost him dearly...one of many stupid moves....including appointing this milquetoast gonzales as atty general....
it may have cost the republicans congressional seats in several states based on extremely close election results...states in which allegations of serious voter fraud were brought forward.....
democrat appointees that weren`t removed by bush failed to investigate....
he can fire them if they don`t perform....and he can fire them if he doesn`t like their haircut....
this is another perfect example of the media bias....the double standard....
and while bush is at it...i wish he`d fire this shitheel johnny sutton who seems to believe that it`s open season on the border patrol....
of course,in this case,he`s doing bush`s bidding...
it was for president clinton when he fired all 93.......and it should have been for bush...
the only real problem is that bush failed to clean house when he took office.....and that was foolish.....and cost him dearly...one of many stupid moves....including appointing this milquetoast gonzales as atty general....
it may have cost the republicans congressional seats in several states based on extremely close election results...states in which allegations of serious voter fraud were brought forward.....
democrat appointees that weren`t removed by bush failed to investigate....
he can fire them if they don`t perform....and he can fire them if he doesn`t like their haircut....
this is another perfect example of the media bias....the double standard....
and while bush is at it...i wish he`d fire this shitheel johnny sutton who seems to believe that it`s open season on the border patrol....
of course,in this case,he`s doing bush`s bidding...
Yes in first year of new Pres it's true all or just about all may be asked to go. But not 3 or 4 years in. The age of e-mails may decide out come here. Seems they give a way where the lies are coming from. This Morning the Pres said Attorney General has more work to clear this up. Sending him back to Senate. Senate may want Rowe to. I think the Pres will shield him. But Harriet Meyers may show. Their was a con done here. More to come soon. Get-em all that lied.
I'm guessing the real reason you "waited" to drop the bomb was that Fox News had not come up with anything on this story that suited your needs until they posted this one, but that's not really a big deal. Continues to be ironic that you criticize liberals for posting info from liberal leans and then grab something as being more fair from Fox News. Whatever.
The POINT about this story, and probably why there has been so little in response to it from conservative blogs is the REASONING behind the firings of these attorneys in question. I can better accept an across the board political attorney replacement by a new President than the selective replacements that are highlighted in these reports much later in a tenure. I have no idea if the attorneys Clinton replaced were in situations like the ones Bush/Gonzalez/whoever replaced, but I do know the current situations - which IS the story. These attorneys are evidently being replaced because of corruption scenarios in sitting legislators...some fired because they are sitting in judgment of convicts like Duke Cunningham, and others are fired because they are not convicting democrats running for office in time for elections. This is merely apattern of obstructing the justice process from the administration in select situations, which I object to as a citizen. I'm sure it's not as big a deal if you are a conservative who supports republicans, but I personally think it should be.
Weasel is correct that these are political appointees and can be fired for whatever reason is chosen. But it is also fair to, as a voter and a reporter, judge the reason and have an opinion about it.
That's the issue here, not media bias, sorry, again.
The POINT about this story, and probably why there has been so little in response to it from conservative blogs is the REASONING behind the firings of these attorneys in question. I can better accept an across the board political attorney replacement by a new President than the selective replacements that are highlighted in these reports much later in a tenure. I have no idea if the attorneys Clinton replaced were in situations like the ones Bush/Gonzalez/whoever replaced, but I do know the current situations - which IS the story. These attorneys are evidently being replaced because of corruption scenarios in sitting legislators...some fired because they are sitting in judgment of convicts like Duke Cunningham, and others are fired because they are not convicting democrats running for office in time for elections. This is merely apattern of obstructing the justice process from the administration in select situations, which I object to as a citizen. I'm sure it's not as big a deal if you are a conservative who supports republicans, but I personally think it should be.
Weasel is correct that these are political appointees and can be fired for whatever reason is chosen. But it is also fair to, as a voter and a reporter, judge the reason and have an opinion about it.
That's the issue here, not media bias, sorry, again.
if someone can show me the rule or law that states that"the president has to rationalize to congress his reasons for firing u.s. attorneys"......
or the law that says that"the president has to fire all u.s. attorneys en masse at the time of his inauguration",please post a link.....
otherwise,it`s all hot air...
i don`t remember clinton giving rationale for firing 93 of these s.o.b.`s when he took office.....
double standard....
unless this constitutes a "quagmire".....
lol
or the law that says that"the president has to fire all u.s. attorneys en masse at the time of his inauguration",please post a link.....
otherwise,it`s all hot air...
i don`t remember clinton giving rationale for firing 93 of these s.o.b.`s when he took office.....
double standard....
unless this constitutes a
"quagmire".....lol
Last edited:
and what say you Hilliary---
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.
As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.
The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.
Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.
In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.
As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.
No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York.
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.
As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.
The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.
Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.
In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.
As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.
No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York.
Fact is if Reb's still had control of congress. This would never got to see day light. But now that it has. It has nothing to do with old stories. It's about now. We shall all get to see whats up next week. I do hope it's not more screw ups like last weeks FBI and Home Land Security. It's bad enough 70% of the county has no faith in the leaders ship of Iraq war. We don't need a surprise of the month. Well that's not fair. Every three months.
Last edited:
