Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

What is your beef? Soon after he took office President Clinton fired most of the US attorneys, replacing them with his own apointees. Dis you object to that? They serve at the President's discretion. That means he gets to decide the matter.

This thread has degenerated to some rather unsavory mutual gratification by a small group of BUsh haters who exhibit an odd need to repeatedly rehearse their feelings with each other. No "Bush supporters" evident. Perhaps they find your repetitions of the same litany a bit boring.

What is your beef? Soon after he took office President Clinton fired most of the US attorneys, replacing them with his own apointees. Dis you object to that? They serve at the President's discretion. That means he gets to decide the matter.

This thread has degenerated to some rather unsavory mutual gratification by a small group of BUsh haters who exhibit an odd need to repeatedly rehearse their feelings with each other. No "Bush supporters" evident. Perhaps they find your repetitions of the same litany a bit boring.

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.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were.

.....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....

The entire scope of Hale's crimes, extending well beyond Capital Management, would not be revealed for years after the FBI raid. A few Arkansans had gotten a glimpse of Hale's true character prior to his well-publicized disgrace. Though he professed to be a devout and happily married Baptist, Hale conducted a long-running illicit affair with his secretary. While romancing her, he managed to swindle her grandparents into signing over their family farm to him. They later sued the judge and won a $486,000 judgment.

The Jon Stewart Daily Show did a good job on Dick Cheney tonight, er, last night.

Quote: "He's been wrong about everything". Anyone watch it?

All of you seem to forget one thing.

As President,Bush has the right to fire ANY person he chooses,if that person works for the govt.

He doesnt need a reason,he doesnt need permission,he doesnt need a committee to OK it,all he has to do is to say that the person is fired.

EVERY President has had that power,so why is anyone crying about it now?

The only reason he needs to fire someone is because he WANTED to fire them.

I think I would like to see you spell it put for us. Under exactly what circumstances does the President not have the authority to fire his legally and constitutionally authorized employees who do not come under the purview of the Civil Service Act? This should be interesting.

You may be correct about #2, assuming that said firing would constitute legally actionable interference with the investigation. Even here the President has wide discretion about the authorization of such investigations.

I suppose you are theoretically right about #1. However there is no legal requirement for the President to disclose his reasons for such firings, and barring unusual circumstances it would be very hard to know or prove his motives.

Clearly neither circumstance obtains in the current matter -- a tempest in a teapot cooked up for obvious political purposes.