From Mediamatters:
When discussing the Bush administration's dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006 -- including allegations the White House initiated the firings for political reasons -- various media personalities and news outlets have downplayed the significance of the allegations by asserting that President Clinton dismissed almost all U.S. attorneys upon taking office in 1993. For example, on the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace linked the two cases: "[H]ere's a fact you probably don't know because it hasn't been reported very -- did you know that Bill Clinton, when he came into office in 1993, fired every U.S. attorney except one?" Wallace claimed that "there were no congressional hearings" and that "it wasn't this kind of storm of protest and that ... had not happened before."They then point to this article in the Washington Post:
Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.And this article in the McClatchy papers:
Just so everyone knows, so when "Clinton did it" he was replacing the US Attorneys from the previous Bush Administration (Bush 41 - the relatively sane one). When Dubya did it recently, HE was replacing Republican US Attorneys because they weren't loyal enough to him and his Attorney GeneralThe Bush administration and its defenders like to point out that President Bush isn't the first president to fire U.S. attorneys and replace them with loyalists.
While that's true, the current case is different. Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected.
Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term.
Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term.
Completely different story.
Here's one more little twist to futher your theme on this one, Dave... suddenly the Republicans -- who typically view all things Clinton as the spawn of Satan himself -- are justifying their actions by claiming that they are merely acting just like Clinton.
ReplyDeleteAs you rightly point out, the similarities are ludicrously weak and their argument doesn't even begin to hold water. But the fact that they are offering it at all is rather interesting. Since when have the Republicans wanted to act just like Bill Clinton?
Oh really?
ReplyDeleteCheck out this from the Wall Street Journal:
"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."
It also goes on to state some peculiarities with some of the fired prosecutors:
"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."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784
Check and mate.
First of all, if something is wrong, it is wrong. Reasonable people can perhaps disagree over whether the Democrats or media are being biased in this case, but it is no defense to say "The other guy did it, too." Maybe U.S. attorneys should not be part of some spoils system.
ReplyDeleteSecond, another difference is that when Clinton fired the U.S. attorneys, he had to get Senate approval for their replacements. If memory serves, a Patriot Act (or related legislation) gives this administration the power to replace U.S. attorneys, at least on an interim basis, without Senate approval.
Xranger;
ReplyDeleteThere's much you left out of what you quoted.
First off, of course, was the fact that what you quoted was in fact from the Wall Street EDITORIAL PAGE - not the news page.
A small point, but important nonetheless.
But after that, I really can't blame you for the editorial's faults. Luckily Mediamatters has already taken apart the conservative argument you so loyally trumpeted.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703140011
The implication of your comment is that had Clinton NOT replaced the US Attorney in Arkansas, a Whitewater investigation would have occurred.
Too bad that just doesn't gibe with reality. In fact the US Attorney Clinton replaced, a guy named Charles A Banks, had already resisted pressure (from the Administration of dubya's father, doncha know) to investigate Whitewater.
A month or so before the 1992 election, AG William Barr had convened a joint FBI-Justice Dept panel on Whitewater. The panel found no evidence for any federal offense. Bush AG Barr nonetheless ordered USAttorney Banks to look at the case again - two weeks BEFORE the 1992 election. But Banks had already concluded that no action should be taken.
This is BEFORE the 1992 election.
In any event, didn't Robert Ray conclude in 2000 that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the Clintons? So why are you dredging up this tired old argument.
Don't you have anything better to go with?
It's been a while since I played chess, but it looks like you're trying to castle after already moving your king.
Precedent in politics, like the courtroom, is the first rule in defense.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, didn't people go to jail because of the Whitewater investigation?
You must not be much of a chess player.
Enlighten me, xranger,
ReplyDeleteWho was convicted for charges related to Whitewater?
Were any of them named Clinton?
Here's a list:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gargaro.com/clintonconvicts.html
This is sloppy work on your part.
If you're going to debate me, you better pick up your game.
Hmm, interesting xranger.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer the question. How many Whitewater convicts were named C-L-I-N-T-0-N?
Looking at your list (compiled at FREEREPUBLIC.COM) I see the answer is, well, none.
And doing a preliminary check there are some holes in your data:
For instance Web Hubbell was NOT convicted of a Whitewater crime. He was convicted of mail fraud and tax evasion conneced to his fraudulently over-billing his lawfirm. And since Senator Clinton was a member of that firm, in effect he was found guilty of STEALING FROM HER.
I don't have time to look at all the examples from your list - but are they all as weak as this one?
Sigh...and how did they find all these people guity? By the Whitewater investigation.
ReplyDeleteClinton wasn't found guilty - everybody around him was. Certainly the US attorney dismissal, at the time, smelled of coverup.
xranger;
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you don't say that Hubbell was convicted of a Whitewater crime.
Did you even bother to read the comment?
The REPUBLICAN APPOINTED USAttorney that Clinton replaced (Banks) decided BEFORE THE 1992 ELECTION not to bring charges against the Clintons. Banks was even under pressure from the Bush(41) Administration to do so - yet he didn't. BEFORE THE 1992 ELECTION.
How on God's green earth could Clinton replacing him even begin to "smell of a cover up"?
I mean c'mon. Don't do any more damage to your credibility - everyone's watching.
It's time for XRanger to drop out of this discussion. He seldom posts more than once after telling you that you're not holding up your end of the debate.
ReplyDeleteI check out when the string gets waayyyy too boring and doesn't resemble anything like the original post.
ReplyDelete