Clinton/Reno fired 92 Federal Prosecutors

[stripersnipr]

Where were the investigations? Why weren't the holier than thou clamoring for Renos resignation? I smell more of the same old double standard we now witness almost daily. Can you imagine if WACO or Ruby Ridge occured under the current administration.

[Swimmer]

Truthfully I believe it was 93 persecutors that Reno fired.

[Nebe]

simple. the economy was booming and the masses were happy.

[Mike P]

Without defending Clinton, it's not unusual for an incoming Administration to ask for the resignation of all of the sitting US Attorneys. They are political appointees, just like the Cabinet, and new Presidents tend to replace them with members of their own party. This was done at the start of Clinton's term, and most of the 93 were given a few months to complete ongoing investigations before their resignations were accepted. Some continued working for 8 months after they "resigned".

[stripersnipr]

So if Bush had fired 93 fp's at the beginning of his term and let a few of them clean out their desks for a few months we wouldn't be seeing this uproar? I don't think so.

[Skip N]

Double standard and selective media outrage. When Dems do it it's quite ok, but when Repubs do it its a HUGE scandal. Nothing new here...

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

So if Bush had fired 93 fp's at the beginning of his term and let a few of them clean out their desks for a few months we wouldn't be seeing this uproar? I don't think so.

Well, considering there is quite a precident, I don't think you can just state this for partisanship alone. These firings coming at this time, just after the mid-term election is from what I've read is more than a bit unusual.

This ordeal is about how the Administration has tried to cover up the political influences in these decisions. There is amazingly enough much hard evidence in this case detailing the political decision process, which completely contradicts what was told publicly.

Many members of Congress are stating they were intentionally misled, and potentially were lied to under oath. Even Republican members of Congress are up in arms and a few now calling for Gonzales to resign.

The Administration has brought this upon themselves. Had they just come clean once the issue started to stink they could have probably gotten through this without all that much harm.

But they tried to brush it off with some misdirection at first, then have changed their story several times since.

Those claiming this is a partisan attack with no substance (like Skip) are either uninformed or ignoring the facts.

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Those claiming this is a partisan attack with no substance (like Skip) are either uninformed or ignoring the facts.

-spence

It's not a question of substance it's a question of double standards and hypocrisy. It's a fact that when Clinton (in a highly unusual manuever) fired 92 federal prosecutors mainstream media barely blinked an eye. This is a media fueled issue that would go hardly noticed if polticians on both sides weren't compelled by the major news outlets to express their "outrage". Fortunately some people have the ability to see it for what it is which is more of same old BS plain and simple.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

It's a fact that when Clinton (in a highly unusual manuever) fired 92 federal prosecutors mainstream media barely blinked an eye.

But Clinton's actions weren't highly unusual. Bush did the same thing in 2001 and you didn't hear a peep from the evil liberal media then did you?

Firing a large and select group of prosecutors mid-term appears to be unprecidented. The quite serious ethics violations that appear to be present, and the lame attempt to cover them up are the problem.

But if blaming Clinton for all of Bush's failings helps you sleep at night...

-spence

[Nebe]

Spence has got it right.

stripernsipr your comparing apples to oranges.

to fire staff at the begining of your term is completely different than what has happened recently.

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Can you imagine if WACO or Ruby Ridge occured under the current administration.

Quite convenient how this was forgotten.

Regardless of the beliefs and or actions of the "victims" involved,the United States Government under Clinton's admin and the direct orders of Janet Reno are responsible for the MURDERS of close to 100 Americans.THIS can't be argued.IT IS A FACT...our government murdered men,women and yes children.Fact.The evidence is there and its proven.And yet they got away with it.

Btw remember Vince Foster.Another conveniently forgotten human.

And now we repeat the same kind of stupidity with our current admin.When will Americans learn?When folks stop pulling that g*ddamn "vote party line" lever at the booth then things might actually change.

[Swimmer]

Wasn't it alledged that they were underperforming? Could that be so? If they are democrats and Bush is in his second term, that means they served six years beyond the norm. Six years on borrowed time. Even in government work thats quite extraordinary. Democratic prosecutors might get listed by PETA as endangered species.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by basswipe

And now we repeat the same kind of stupidity with our current admin.When will Americans learn?When folks stop pulling that g*ddamn "vote party line" lever at the booth then things might actually change.

Well said!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Wasn't it alledged that they were underperforming? Could that be so? If they are democrats and Bush is in his second term, that means they served six years beyond the norm. Six years on borrowed time. Even in government work thats quite extraordinary.

I believe they were all Bush appointees from his first term. I've read that the performance claims doesn't hold much water...but you have to be wary of the liberal media.

-spence

[Nebe]

is it '09 yet?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Wasn't it alledged that they were underperforming? Could that be so?

Hmmmmmmm....

One of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration after Republican complaints that he neglected to prosecute voter fraud had been heralded for his expertise in that area by the Justice Department, which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17682212/

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Did anyone ever believe for a second the firings were performance related? Political hirings equal Political Firings. Thats the reality and anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional. Do you think the Bush Admin would get a pass if they'd said "these eight prosecutors were let go because their actions were not conducive to our political goals"?. As far as when they were fired, at the beginning of the first term, or beginning of the second term, or mid second term.......doesn't matter squat. They were fired for the same reason Clinton fired the 92. I find the whole thing ridiculous.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

As far as when they were fired, at the beginning of the first term, or beginning of the second term, or mid second term.......doesn't matter squat. They were fired for the same reason Clinton fired the 92. I find the whole thing ridiculous.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Reasons already stated above.

-spence

[PaulS]

It has always been a patronage position and they are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the pres. BTY Rudy Giuliani was a prosecutor for anyone who doesn't know. What got Bush in trouble is that they have always been insulated from politics and unless let go b/c of performance issues and unless of an administration changes, they have had great job security. Gonzales injected politics into an area where customarily politics was not involved. The attornies were pressured to bring cases against Dems prior to the last election.

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The attornies were pressured to bring cases against Dems prior to the last election.

That's one of the accusations at least...along with too much pressure on Republicans.

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

You're comparing apples and oranges. Reasons already stated above.

-spence

Clinton dismissed 92 federal prosecutors because they were not conducive to the achievment of political goals = Apples

Bush fired 8 federal proscecutors because they were not conducive to the achievement of political goals = Apples

This isn't a Clinton bashing excercise because I would expect all Presidents to do what they felt was required to achieve their goals. I fault neither for those particular actions.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Clinton dismissed 92 federal prosecutors because they were not conducive to the achievment of political goals = Apples

Bush fired 8 federal proscecutors because they were not conducive to the achievement of political goals = Apples

Firing an attorney because they are too agressive in investigating Republicans = Oranges

Telling Congrss one thing, then changing your story as information surfaces that contradicts it = Oranges

Now find some bananas and you've got a nice fruit salad

-spence

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It has always been a patronage position and they are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the pres. BTY Rudy Giuliani was a prosecutor for anyone who doesn't know.

Yup. And despite his great conviction record in prosecuting the Mob (Pizza Connection and the Commision) and Wall Street sharks, he was one of the 93 whose resignation Janet Reno asked for. He was given a few months to wrap up his business, and replaced by Mary Jo White. It was what Rudy expected to happen after the Democrats won the White House, and probably the best thing that ever happened for his political career. Then again, he probably would have resigned anyway. No one makes a career out of being US Attorney for a Federal judicial district. For most, it's a stepping stone to a black robe. Few Asst. US Attorneys make it a career choice--for them, it's a stepping stone to a position in a mega-bucks private firm.

[spence]

Interesting, sorry I don't have the link for this.

Was Carol Lam Targeting The White House Prior To Her Firing?

Referring to the Bush administration’s purge of former San Diego-based U.S. attorney Carol Lam, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) questioned recently on the Senate floor whether she was let go because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful.”

The media reports this morning that among Lam’s politically powerful targets were former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and then-House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA). But there is evidence to believe that the White House may also have been on Lam’s target list. Here are the connections:

– Washington D.C. defense contractor Mitchell Wade pled guilty last February to paying then-California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes.

– Wade’s company MZM Inc. received its first federal contract from the White House. The contract, which ran from July 15 to August 15, 2002, stipulated that Wade be paid $140,000 to “provide office furniture and computers for Vice President #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney.”

– Two weeks later, on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a yacht for $140,000 for Duke Cunningham. The boat’s name was later changed to the “Duke-Stir.” Said one party to the sale: “I knew then that somebody was going to go to jail for that…Duke looked at the boat, and Wade bought it — all in one day. Then they got on the boat and floated away.”

– According to Cunningham’s sentencing memorandum, the purchase price of the boat had been negotiated through a third-party earlier that summer, around the same time the White House contract was signed.

To recap, the White House awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to an individual who never held a federal contract. Two weeks after he got paid, that same contractor used a cashier’s check for exactly that amount to buy a boat for a now-imprisoned congressman at a price that the congressman had pre-negotiated.

[spence]

More interesting news...

It looks like (according to submitted documents) Patrick Fitzgerald was ranked on the "Bushie" scale as only mediocre, the same ranking of several of the fired attorneys.

Fitzgerald of course was the man who prosecuted Scooter Libby and implicated the VP's office in the case.

This is a man regarded as one of the best prosecutors in the country, and the man who prepared the indictment of Osama Bin Laden!

Sniper, you still think this was just a performance issue as stated?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...902036_pf.html

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

More interesting news...

It looks like (according to submitted documents) Patrick Fitzgerald was ranked on the "Bushie" scale as only mediocre, the same ranking of several of the fired attorneys.

Fitzgerald of course was the man who prosecuted Scooter Libby and implicated the VP's office in the case.

This is a man regarded as one of the best prosecutors in the country, and the man who prepared the indictment of Osama Bin Laden!

Sniper, you still think this was just a performance issue as stated?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...902036_pf.html

-spence

Spence what I said was "Did anyone ever believe for a second the firings were performance related? Political hirings equal Political Firings. Thats the reality and anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional".

I stand by the point that the firing of the eight was no more or less political than the firing of the 92.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

I stand by the point that the firing of the eight was no more or less political than the firing of the 92.

Sorry, but the evidence coming forth doesn't match that assertion.

Additionally, here's some new food for thought. When Clinton's AG fired everyone at the beginning of his term, I'm pretty sure the replacements had to go through Senate confirmation.

Under the Patriot Act signed into law by President Bush the Whitehouse now has the legal authority to fire and replace Federal Prosecutors indefinately without Senate confirmation.

This is a BIG difference you might not have been aware of. I just learned of it recently myself.

How the fruit salad coming along?

-spence

[Mike P]

Do you see a difference between Nixon not keeping Ramsey Clark on as Attorney General when he took office (in effect, firing him as well as the rest of LBJ's cabinet) and his later firing of Eliot Richardson as AG because he wouldn't carry out Nixon's order to fire Archibald Cox?

I think that's the distinction that Spence is driving at

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Mike P

Do you see a difference between Nixon not keeping Ramsey Clark on as Attorney General when he took office (in effect, firing him as well as the rest of LBJ's cabinet) and his later firing of Eliot Richardson as AG because he wouldn't carry out Nixon's order to fire Archibald Cox?

I think that's the distinction that Spence is driving at

Yep I understand the distinction, each instance has its own set of nuances but at the end of the day all the firings were essentially for the same reason. Whether in anticipation of, or after the fact, federal prosecutors are fired for not doing as the sitting President desires. This comes as no surprise to me no matter who is in the Whitehouse. The seperation of power between executive and judiciary branches has been skewed for decades.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

Under the Patriot Act signed into law by President Bush the Whitehouse now has the legal authority to fire and replace Federal Prosecutors indefinately without Senate confirmation.

-spence

Not anymore according to the senate.

This screw up was so bad that people now feel sympathy for lawyers!