Has anyone yet come out with a reason why the "news" media is so ga-ga over George Bush's recent firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys? They serve at the pleasure of the President, as did the 93 U.S. Attorneys in office in march 1993. The "news' media wasn't nearly as concerned when ALL 93 of them were fired. Could it be that this was because those firings were done by Bill Clinton - someone that 90+ percent of the media had voted for?

Naw.

----------------------------------

Media Research Center Home Page - 3/14/2007 12:29:11 PM

Networks ignored Clinton's firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, fret over Bush's 8

March 14, 2007

> The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993
about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of
all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the
"controversy," fed by the media, over the Bush administration for
replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after
rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the
attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would "look at all the
angles tonight," but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased:
"New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is
fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney
General to resign." CBS's Katie Couric declared that "the uproar is
growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the
Justice Department" and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: "The
Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial
dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?"
Brown soon asserted that "it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and
it exploded today" -- an explosion fueled by the news media.

2) Brit Hume led his Tuesday night Grapevine segment by scolding his media
colleagues for how "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 back in 1993." Hume explained how that was not noted, "even in
passing, in front-page stories today in the New York Times and the
Washington Post, or in the AP's story on the subject."

__________________
The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than the system we're using now.

Please include some original commentary of your own, lest the thread be closed...

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Sorry, Matt. Done.

__________________
The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than the system we're using now.

okay I will if I may.........as usual, its the old media-Clinton driven double standard.....what the Clintons do, is ignored wholesale while she screams right wing conspiracy…please…… or another tactic of the left…IF its brought up, WE are admonished- “hey 2 wrongs don’t make a right so drop it”...I say crap to that...and they go saling along...theres nothing political about Bushes firings…...BUT the Clintons had very good reasons for the wholesale butchery they used to muddy up their own issues that where chasing them..this kind of crass opportunism i.e. Taking advantage of their media cheerleaders that ignore the past, I mean I know she thinks the public is stupid, but something so easily checked and made public like this, just shows what contempt she has for anyone but herself… hypocrisy on a scale that only Hillary can attain… , and frankly this opportunism AND rank intellectual dishonesty is so slimey ….give me a break…….and tell me about polarization again… …….as Dee Dee Myers said…”theres nothing they won’t do” referring to Bill and Hill… oh and remember she is now touting herself (again) as an experienced “partner” in her husbands presidency on the campaign trail now, so no; “she had nothing to do with it” crap… you cannot have it both ways…..and I won’t even bring up Billy Dale and the travel office firings…



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.

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.
OpinionJournal - Featured Article

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Very simple.

Clinton in 93 didn't lie to Congress about it.

Gonzales in 2007 apparently did.

Now you do remember what the penalty is for lying to Congress eh?

Given their intense interest in recent firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys by the Bush administration, the U.S. media has been remarkably un-curious about another recent set of firings, in 1993. If these supposed "investigative journalists" actually did what their title implies, they might find some interesting things. When do you suppose we can expect them to do that?

Yeah, me neither.

------------------------------------

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

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 Albert 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.

__________________
The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than the system we're using now.

Well, if we follow the precedent of the Clinton impeachment, the actual penalty is, well, nothing.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

There is another thread on this same subject by you, http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/brea...bushs-8-a.html and by kramer http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/judi...xcept-one.html . It's already been discussed. Maybe the three should be merged. Although we've already concluded that Clinton's replacing all the attorneys is the same thing all president's do. The attorneys submit their resignations at the end of the term and the incoming president either accepts or denies the resignations. Papa Bush's appointed attorneys refused to submit the resignations and so Janet Reno was forced to fire them.

What Bush is doing is completely different. Bush appointed these attorneys and has had them fired because they did not show loyalty to him by indicting the democrats he wanted indicted!

How many threads are you going to make on the same subject acorn?

Agreed, that is why there is such an ado over his impeachment. All ot turned out to be was a censor, or slap on the hand. But that won't stop the pundents from bring it up, OVER and OVER, and OVER again.

I respectfully call bullshit on this thread.

It is common practice for a new adminstration to start by appointing all new US attorneys. The current situation is different because those who were fired--all Bush appointees--were essentially let go in the middle of his presidency. According to the following report, this round of firings is very unusual:

NPR : Context: How U.S. Attorneys Are Hired and Fired

__________________
There you are!

What Clinton did may or may not have been right, however it was 15 years ago, you can not change history no matter how hard people try, you learn from it and move on.All Clintons replacements were confirmed by a Republican Senate as was the requirement at the time. What Bush did may or may not be wrong however when you factor in the little add on to the Patric act the removes the Senate from having to confirm the new FPs . It does make it look a little odd

SonofaHun: Don't confuse the Clinton-obsessed looney tunes with facts...

__________________
"Tomorrow, you're all going to wake up in a Brave New World, a world where the Constitution gets trampled by an army of terrorist clones created in a stem cell research laboratory, run by homosexual doctors who sterilize their instruments over burning American flags."

Actually, the new clinton FPs were not confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate, they were confirmed by the then Democrat controlled Senate.

And the manner of appointing new FPs to replace outgoing ones has nothing to do with the ages old right of a President to fire them.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Only thing is, only like one or two attorneys have ever been fired in the middle of a term by the prez who appointed them before. And never 7 in one day. And never for political reasons. This is unprecedented.