An item that hasn’t received much attention here at is Bush’s recent firing of 8 US Attorneys. Now that the House Judiciary Committee is investigating the circumstances surrounding the unusual action, Alberto Gonzales is claiming that each attorney was fired for cause. A look into their records makes that a puzzling claim.

These six have had stellar records and positive reviews:

-Daniel Bogden in Nevada
-Paul Charlton in Arizona
-John McKay in Seattle
-Carol Lam in San Diego
-David Iglesias in New Mexico
-H.E. Cummins in Illinois

One had some management complaints against him (Kevin Ryan in San Francisco) and one had no explanation given at all (Margaret Chiara in Michigan).

Most of the fired US Attorneys were involved in corruption cases when they were summarily terminated. One of them, H.E. Cummins, has testified that he was threatened with “retaliation” if he spoke to the press about his ouster.

Carol Lam was the prosecutor in Republican Duke Cunningham’s bribery trial. Not a popular decision, I would think.

The firing of Iglesias is receiving a lot of attention. Reading about the man, you’d think he was the kind of person Bush would absolutely adore; former Navy JAG, evangelical Christian, a prosecutor that successfully prosecuted Democrats for corruption. Heck, he’s a Republican’s wet dream!

In recent hearings, six of the fired US Attorneys testified about calls from prominent Republicans inquiring about active cases, which in and of itself is an impropriety.



Were the firings inappropriate?

Was the intent of the mass firings to place more malleable Bush-supporters in the positions?

Should an ethics investigation be brought against the Republicans involved?

Were the firings inappropriate?
As somebody who believes that an employer should have the same flexibility regarding the continuance (or initiation) of an employment relationship as the employee, I have to say no. US Attorney's can quit at any time they choose, hence, they can be canned at any time.

Was the intent of the mass firings to place more malleable Bush-supporters in the positions?
I have no idea. Its possible, but if we're going to get Machiavellian, lets go all the way. This is actually a case of setting these fired guys up so they can springboard as 'matyrs'. More eeeeeevil Rove machinations and all that.

Should an ethics investigation be brought against the Republicans involved?
Sure, lets round up the same ethics investigators who looked into the firing of all the US Attorney's in 1993.

The federal government isn't just any old employer. The need for a nonpoliticized civil service is obvious. It's somewhat amazing you would be so glib as to compare the people's business with the Gap.


[


Given the Bush administration's history of disinformation campaign to protect the discreted claims they have made on the war, the environment, social security, and elsewhere, it's obvious that the purges at the AG office is part of a larger politicization of the civil service to toe the Bush line. There's nothing "machiavellian" in seeing what the Bush administration has done and is doing to politicize the civil service, and for you to imply that those who have come to this obvious conclusion are delusional or have over active imaginations constitutes a not to covert ad hominem attack (something you see a lot of here by conservatives)




Pssst: Clinton isn't president anymore; Bush is.

A little actual research rather than a knee-jerk reaction would have been nice.

US attorneys are political appointees...and these particular appointees were appointed by BUSH. The point isn't that they were fired; it is the circumstances in which they were fired. Oh, and as for the firing of all attorneys in 1993? Common practice for an incoming president. This instance is the president who appointed them dumped them for purely political reasons.

You have to take what Gonzales says with a large grain of salt. He once said that George Washington used electronic surveillance too!

Its not a "knee jerk" reaction. My basic guiding principle regarding employment is this: hire or not anybody you want, for whatever reason you choose, and fire the same. I call that "honest employment." It makes no difference to me whether the employer is Uncle Sam or Uncle Joey's Burger Spot. The fact that these are political appointees, rather than civil service, simply places them back into the realm of honest employment relationships. Back in the day, they used to phrase it this way "you serve at the pleasure of the President."


Are you sure about that? I ask because I don't recall Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, or the current President canning all the US Attorneys. Many do leave upon change of Administration, and many more are replaced when their terms expire, but no other President has ever canned the entire lot of them, AFAIK.

What if said attorneys were pressured to break the law, and they declined? Would that be justification for firing under your "honest employment" program?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/opinion/...and&emc=rss

Well, the truth is slowly begging to surface it looks like. Thanks for the article also.

I mean really, just some instant need to disband so many people from there positions, yet its to be thought of as nothing. I mean what was the logic behind each case or reason for the pink slip, does any really exist? rumsfeld gone, Libby’s looking at a possible 30 years, wolfowits fled a soon as it started, but helped start it, Colin Powell left after being somewhat angry, we have gone through how many other positions in terms of replacement in all areas of government. This is the most turbulent and secretive administration I can ever remember, including books, but yet no real push for any investigation, I hope this if finally it, along with the Libby trial, and of course finally having some equilibrium in government. Its sort of like the mafia, always having to tie up that loose end really.

Yes. What part of "whatever reason" eludes you? I would hope that, in a situation such as that, the Attorney's in question would politely decline, and if the pressure was more substantive, then they should publicly resign and state exactly why. Unfortunately, the "resignation because I object to your policies" approach is essentially extinct in America, on all chords of the political roundtable.

I have no idea what went on in the New Mexico situation, but I do believe that the US Attorney should have investigated the Washington gubernatorial fiasco, and by failing to do so, deserves canning.

It should be noted that the US Attorneys do not have sufficient investigative and prosecutorial resources to pursue every Federal crime within their jurisidictions. Therefore, choices must be made as to what crimes will be pursued. These choices always include a political component. Who do we go after? The business employing illegal aliens, or the county commissioner getting bribes from the strip clubs? Perhaps we focus on terrorists' money laundering, or maybe election fraud? How about child pornography, or maybe union corruption? The choices made will change, sometimes at the local level, sometimes in DC. When the local level's choice doesn't comport with DC's choice, then local dude either better get with DC's plan, or find another job.

Frankly, I wish someone in the Bush Administration would have the balls to tell Congress to get stuffed. Congress, more accurately, the Senate, has the power to "advise and consent" to the hiring of US Attorneys. Nothing regarding the firing. It is a violation of the separation of powers for Congress to require the President to continue to employ someone that, for whatever reason, the President does not wish to employ, just as it would be a violation for the President to tell Pelosi that she must fire her Castro District Outreach Coordinator. If Congress thinks that there's some sort of cover-up underway here, fine, let them investigate it. I, personally, think this is nothing more than Gonzales fine-tuning his "management team" to suit him. These folks were all Ashcroft's picks, not Gonzales.

If, and that's a fair sized "if", this is about political corruption investigations, well, its pretty clear that Gonzales doesn't really care much about the matter, how else can you explain the fact that Representative William Jefferson - Democrat, Louisiana, hasn't even been indicted yet, much less perp-walked to a Federal pen?

The firings were grossly inappropriate. While it is the norm to replace federal attorneys when there is a change in the administration, it is unprecedented to fire attorneys in the middle of an administration's tenure due to purely political reasons. The second debate question appears to be problematic as the real question deals with whether or not the prosecutors were sacked for going too hard after Heather Wilson. Wilson admitted that she contacted one of the attorneys out of a desire to settle a constituent matter. However, if you are being looked at by the feds and you know it's illegal to pressure federal employees who just happen to be investigating you, I would think one would desire to not engage in anything that would look inappropriate. Why she failed to do that is beyond me. She couldn't have passed it on to another member of her state's delegation to handle?

For Wilson and others to be correct about this whole thing, it would have to be proven that it was purely coincidental that these folks were fired. There were investigations going on, it was not routine to let people go in the middle of a term, and there was obviously contact. So far, the facts do not bode well for the Attorney General on this. Even republicans are upset over the matter as adequate explanations for the firing have yet to be outlined.

As for the third question, I'm not certain how far an investigation would go. The administration has caved in regarding this matter and will not oppose congressional efforts to get these people back to work.

Were the firings inappropriate?

Looks like political payback to me. It could be prepping the remaining Republican appointees for the 2008 election, but if a Democrat wins the White House, it won't make any difference anyway. So I have to wonder what's going on in other prosecuting attorney's minds at this level of appointment. Do the job or follow vague directions with implied threats? Must be tough.

Was the intent of the mass firings to place more malleable Bush-supporters in the positions?

That, or to send a clear message about career choices. This seems to be the issue, that the attorneys didn't do enough to help Republicans keep Congress, governorships, state legislatures -- and so don't expect steady employment. Seems like a last-ditch effort to forcibly rally the Republicans together before the ship goes down.

Should an ethics investigation be brought against the Republicans involved?

That's not necessary. It's pretty obvious what's going on. Now that the attorneys have been fired, there's no control over who they talk to or what they do from here on out. This should be sufficient.

It might be lawful to fire people for no reason. It's also often not a smart thing to do, as it invites freedom of speech. I'm expecting book deals from this situation that blow the lid off local corruption, Daily Show appearances and so on. I often wonder about the corporate-think types holding the axes after whacking holes in the ship's hull, and then going, "Hey, where'd all this water come from?"

I liken it to an employee who hops from job to job, leaving for no reason whatsoever, maybe in the middle of a critical project. The reputation follows, and the message is clear: Can't trust this one. This firing spurt reinforces the growing attitude that Republicans can't be trusted, and as unfair and generalized as this is, that's what is happening.

Were the firings inappropriate?
Since they are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States of course the firings were appropriate. Any time for any reason. That is the meaning of the job.

I noticed nobody objected to the firing of Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey. Nor CIA Director Porter Goss. I wonder why?

Was the intent of the mass firings to place more malleable Bush-supporters in the positions?
Of course, that is what political appointees are suppose to be. Every President appoints people that support their point of view and those that don't make the grade are fired.

Normal in the course of all administrations.

Should an ethics investigation be brought against the Republicans involved?
For what? For removing people that serve at the pleasure of the President? A total waste of time and effort. No investigation has jurisdiction in this matter. There are many reasons to investigate the members of this administration, this is not one of them.

If you had read some of the source material offered, you would know that Iglesias WAS investigating the “gubernatorial fiasco”, but he wasn’t moving quickly enough to sway an upcoming election in the Republican's favor. So, your statement falls flatter than a pancake. Like the caveman in the Geico commercials says, next time, do a little research.

The Republican senators and representatives contacting the US attorneys on these matters were acting in a wholly improper manner. The US Attorneys acted ethically by not bowing to the political pressure, and that is why they were “canned”. And when the very administration that hired them stated they were all fired for cause (performance), they were, shall we say, less than happy, because in most of the cases, it was untrue. And for clarification, none of them were eager to testify; they were subpoenaed.

Some interesting new developments in the US Attorney firing case. Aside from getting a good belly laugh from Arlen Specter telling Alberto Gonzales he could soon suffer the same fate as the 8 fired US Attorneys, it looks like the administration is backing down from its former belligerent refusal to let Gonzales’ aides testify.

There is a good graphic synopsis of the 8 attorneys and circumstances surrounding their ouster here.

I posted previously that the action of firing the attorneys in question was unprecedented. It's especially problematic in that they had stellar records. Heck, one of them served as the basis for a popular movie.



The heads of agencies are in a whole other category. Civil servants such as these guys are something else other than the "spoils system" that occurs at the start of a new president's term.

I don't agree with your "unprecendented" assesment. Janet Reno fired every last one of them in 1993 without cause, so barring that, it's always political.

But as far as cabinet members, I agree with you.

I'm down on Bush as much as anybody, but I think this story is manufactured. In a perfect world, this should never happen. But this is DC politics. Both parties are equally as dirty.

It is standard operation to bring in new attorneys to serve at your pleasure. 1993 was the beginning of Clinton's term.

What separates the Clinton deal from this are two BIG differences.

1.)The federal prosecutors released were given positive recommendations. These prosecutors only received a positive recommendation after congress put Gonzalez in check.

2.)The federal prosecutors made way for new ones in 1993 at the beginning of a term, it wasn't out of political partisanship.

Other than misconduct of some sort, it is not standard operating procedure to replace prosecutors in mid-stream so to speak.




What's manufactured? The prosecutors had glowing records and they were looking into republicans during a sensitive election time, and they were leaned on. How could the firings of these prosecutors simply be coincidental?

No one has effectively provided any evidence as to how that would be the case yet.

Since Bush has no credibility whatsoever, I can see why you would think this is some type of Nixonesque "Saturday Night Massacre". I don't think anybody is wrong in believing so. But it doesn't pass the smell test for me.

If these firings were to protect certain investigations, why fire almost all of them? And why not do it sooner before the last election? Could it not be said that Clinton fired everyone of them because he knew Whitewater would be an issue? Where does it stop?

Bush probably fired all of them because the "stay the course" phase of his life is over. He has changed a lot since the spanking he handed the republicans last election and he's probably just trying to avoid further losses by taking decisive action(s).

Hanlon's Razor fits here more than some conspiracy. Bush simply doesn't have the intellectual skills to make some type of legal play. I'd be surprised he can tie his own shoes let alone manage some legal cover campaign. This story is giving him far too much credit.

The "smell" test is quite easy. Other than the beginning of a term, federal prosecutors are not released unless they do something illegal. I have a hyper-link that clearly shows how these firings were truly unprecedented. The evidence is there, once again-could anyone provide one shred of evidence that it wasn't political? On top of that, it was a political act, especially as it has come out that Karl Rove was involved. This is important as the White House and justice denied any White House involvement.




Got any links about that?

Boy, that'll teach me not to watch news on the weekend! Whew, there's a lot going on.

A “manufactured” story, Dayton Rocker?? How do you figure? The AG has admitted his culpability! Of course, he sacrificed an underling rather than do the honorable thing and resign, but this is definitely not a "manufactured story".

Ah, Bush’s little Supreme Court nominee/love-letter writer is still looking out for his interests. I don’t know; call me crazy, but I think this is huge.
Edited to add this exchange - to paraphrase Spencer Tracy, it's "cherce"

Were the firings inappropriate?



That's funny. Stand-up funny.

C'mon don't you know this is simply an "overblown personal matter"? Sheesh!

Was the intent of the mass firings to place more malleable Bush-supporters in the positions?
Washington Post


With the numerous conflicts of interest Mr. Gonzales was involved in, I'd say he makes a convenient scape goat for his superiors.

Should an ethics investigation be brought against the Republicans involved?

Good question. Here's the hard part, identifying all the guilty parties. I'll add one caveat, identifying all the guilty parties in light of Mr. Gonzales' resignation.
Now the question I have is who pressured him to hand in his resignation? Was it Karl, a faux pas from the underling Kyle Sampson, or a secret commie plot from the vast left wing conspiracy? Hmm

10 bucks sez this gets swept under the rug fast.

Edited for clarity

Kyle Sampson handed in his resignation not Alberto, it's amazing how omission throws things in a different direction.

Update: In the midst of emails, pointing towards the president, I'm think a review of this thread in a couple weeks will be highly beneficial.

The firings appear to be an attempt to obstruct justice, which is historically the crime committed by the right that brings them down.

The point of the firing were to impede or intervene in ongoing investigations or prosecutions for political purposes. As you know Rove actually put pressure on the AG to indict Democrats before the election in order to bolster the sagging fortunes of GOP candidates. That's obstruction of justice in black and white.

Ethics investigation nothing. A criminal investigation against Senator Di Minici, Rove and any othe GOP operative who tried to interfere with our criminal justice system, should be initiated. And I expect it will be eventually. This is the usual drip drip drip before the flood breaks. As the emails show, the Bush administration lied about why the firings took place, and spefically did not fire them due to incompetence (since Meiers suggesting firing all 93 of the US attorneys for Bush to get what he wanted)

Were the firings inappropriate?

Not at all. He could even have don what Bill Clinton did and fire 93!!!

She was not in charge from the beginning. Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it. Just as the best place to hide a body is on a battlefield, the best way to be rid of one potentially troublesome attorney is to fire all of them. The U.S. attorney in Little Rock was replaced by a Clinton protégé

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...v50/ai_21123146

http://newsbusters.org/node/11390



Was the intent of the mass firings to place more malleable Bush-supporters in the positions?


It’s a political job. Clinton fired the US Attorney in AK right in the middle of the Whitewater Investigation along with 92 others and the press barely noticed it. Shows us how “fair” the press is.


Should an ethics investigation be brought against the Republicans involved?

Ludicrous to even think of it.

Were the firings inappropriate?
Absolutely not! I can't see any difference between these firings and those of Janet Reno except she terminated many more. Why should we have a criminal investigation just because Republicans are involved this time?

Was the intent of the mass firings to place more malleable Bush-supporters in the positions?
I am sure that is indeed the case. The same reason Clinton wanted it done during his presidency.


Should an ethics investigation be brought against the Republicans involved?
That would be absolutely silly!

Something isn't passing the smell test here.

Firing 93 attorney is definitely newsworthy.

Now I'm all Mr. Bork's speculation Ted, heck I'll even listen to alien abductions but nowhere in Mr. Bork's bio, or Bill's bio, is there any whiff of wrong doing on this subject.

While Janet Reno requested (truncated subscriber article) a firing, requesting and acting are two very different things.

The republicans at the time tried to make this into something actionable. Problem was nothing ever came of it.

Going from memory, what amazed me about Clinton was his ability to shrug off scandal. Read Bill's list of failures. That isn't one of them.

What you have linked as fact was more of an e-pinion on one link and gossip on the other. Keep in mind you took an article from a man who made a career out wrecking other peoples' careers. Possibly a father figure to Ann Coulter?

What concerns me is the dyslexic nature of simply grabbing muck off google and placing it completely out of context. You've presented the arguement that Bill's callous disregard for authourity ran just as deep as George's. The irony here is you've linked Bobby Bork, and he has more than a little contempt of his own for judicial nominees.



Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black eh Ted?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this, Ted. Are you saying that because Clinton did it, it's okay for Dubya to do it?

Anyway, firing US attorneys at the beginning of a term is much different than doing so in the middle of the term when at least some of those attorneys were investigating ethics violations involving both Democrats and Republicans at election time. Even Dubya apologists, such as yourself, ought to recognize this difference. It also seems anti-conservative to me that these folks were not fired based on lack of performance (i.e. merit-based firings); rather, it appears to be a hatchet job designed to get everyone else to "fall into line".


Was the intent of the mass firings to place more malleable Bush-supporters in the positions?


Hmm... I don't think 1993 marked even the beginning, much less the middle, of the Whitewater investigation.

I guess you missed the part that they are not Civil Servants, but just like those heads of agencies. As a political appointee they are not Civil Servants.

Others have answered with the fact that US Attorneys have been fired enmasse by prior Presidents. The only difference is that this was not at the beginning of the Presidential term.

The reality of this is that the Bush White House has done a lot of things that are either very questionable or in some cases illegal. Those need to be addressed. This is a tempest in a teapot in comparison.

Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton…

Jeez, is that the only defense possible to mount against any and every crime the Bush administration has committed? If so, it’s monumentally lame. When the White House changes political parties, federal attorneys are almost always replaced. No news here, move along.

No one mentions the little caveat stuck into the Patriot Act (can’t blame that one on Clinton, sorry) that allows the AG to hire and fire federal prosecutors without Senate approval. And the AG is in bed with the Bush administration, which taints the whole process.

US attorneys are supposed to be impartial. Making them beholden to political interests of the ruling party and firing them if they don’t is unethical at the very least.



I’ll say.

Were the firings inappropriate?

It appears so, in many cases. Here are the emails that everyone is talking about. I haven't seen anyone here post the links. emails 1 emails 2 emails 3 emails 4

The strikeout / hit list of attorneys to be let go is page 6 of emails group 1. Some of these attorneys, like Carol Lam, have been on a hit list since March of 2005. Others, like Bud Cummins in Arkansas, apparently did not intend to serve out their term, and Bush is choosing to appoint their successor now.

Here is the start of one of the mails in group 3.

Charlton, the (now fired) attorney has a stated policy of not prosecuting illegal aliens until their 13th border violation. 13th. Does that strike anyone here as 'enforcing the law'? He also refused to go after marijuana smugglers unless they had 500 pounds or more. Nice. Carol Lam was also cited for not doing more on illegal immigration.
Iglesias in New Mexico didn't go after voter fraud with enough zeal, despite ACORN and the multiple obvious violations in that state. Ditto for Washington, where ballots in the basement elected a Democratic governor.

Bush may be an incompetent boob, but culling the US attorneys who weren't enforcing the law seems like a good idea to me.

This is not a new practice Trouble as you might have read. Perfectly legal as well. And what is the issue with Bush timing? Are you insinuating it was done to suppress an investigation? If so – come out with it and drop the innuendo.

Now Bill is different. He fires the guy involved in White Water – you remember the one Hillary got away with while everyone else went to jail, including one screamer for not testifying in regard to Hillary. And then he appoints a buddy of his. Does this STINK or is it just me?

I'm not sure about Whitewater, but I do remember that (DC-area US attorney) Jay Stephens was getting very close to (Democratic Ways & Means chair) Dan Rostenkowski when Janet Reno asked for his resignation. They were only given 10 days to clean out their office, as I recall. This was in March of '03, and Rosty wasn't indicted until the House Post Office scandal a year later. I'm pretty sure that Stephens was going after him for ghost payrolling.

Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton What IS that obnoxious noise? Blah blah blah Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton... shoo, scat!!


Notice the caveat, NOT COUNTING CHANGE IN PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION?

But what’s happened here is that the Senate has been cut out of the loop by the Patriot Act, thereby allowing political appointments to what should be a largely apolitical job.

(emphasis mine)
What happened and is still happening is a perversion of the federal justice system. There are also career lawyers in the federal justice system, and they have their own issues with the current administration. This is from a retired Civil Rights attorney:

The AG office is staffed with poliitcal appointees so there's nothing wrong with a president putting in his own people as US attorneys. Indeed, it's typical, not just of Clinton, but every president.

So it's OK to fire all of them and replace them. What it not ok is to try to influence ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS by firing US attorneys. That's obstruction of justice. Ironically, if Bush had simply fired all of the US Attorneys, that would have been OK, because there would have been no attempt to influence a particular investigation. Instead, he and Rove conspired to influence ongoing investigation to benefit Republican candidates, and when they got caught, they lied and said that they fired the attorneys for competency reasons.

Bush is in trouble. And his apologists on this board are looking desperate.

If you wish to make an arguement based on partisan bickering, go for it but support your arguement with links that made it beyond the allegation level.

I'm suggesting you post credible links to support your statements and reinforce your arguement in a manner consistent with the rules.

Three points in case of confusion.

One, I'm not advocating one party over another. I've never suggested in any posts to favour one party over the other.

Two, if you search the archives of AD, you will find a lot of administration policy which contradicts itself, IE say one thing and do another. This attitude can be superimposed upon several hot topics such as border security, illegal immigration, tax reform, and the ostensible war of terror. The material is extensive and would most probably flag a 'stay on topic' response from a moderator if I were to get into it here.

Three, the purpose of Daffygrrl's thread is to highlight malpractice. The only thing harder than highlighting malpractice at the institutional level is highlighting malpractice which happened ten years ago. Therefore, it is most productive (especially from a google perspective) to voice problems in current events as we see them. The perspective is one of public vigilance regardless who is occupying office, not left verses right partisanship.



If you wish to construct a viewpoint of the whitewater guy, let's try naming him, flesh out his tenure with say a biography, and then construct similar parallels of events that we can apply in the here and now.

If this is your point then state your case and have auxiliary links to support it. As your statement stands it is near impossible to debate in its current form.

And you have proof this was done? You have the required, filed by the attorney report. POST IT please. And I notice how nicely you and Grl pass over the Clinton firing that, regardless of timing, came right in the middle of the White Water investigation ( to install a college “friend”) – now if this is not obstruction I don’t know what is.



I listened to an hour long discussion of this on NPR where even the Dem supporting view did not thing any of the firings was “illegal” . They also pointed out that if anyone tried to influence an attorney in ANY WAY it was required of the Attorney that he immediately file a REPORT. This was not done so the innuendo is all we have.
Now Bill’s firing was really a lot more suspicious wasn’t it? Takes out the attorney investigating he and Hillary to put in his buddy Paula Casey. Hey knowing Bill she was probably a lover as well. More bang for the buck.

As we now know, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock was closing in on Clinton for Whitewater-related matters and his and Hillary’s involvement in the defrauding of the Small Business Administration.
Clinton’s replacement for U.S. attorney in Little Rock was Paula Casey, a former law school student of his. She did much to protect her patron.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...19/174006.shtml

Ted, if you ever bothered to read anyone’s sources other than your own, you would have seen this:

I see a lot of blathering about "Bush-haters" and how that's an answer to anyone who criticizes the current administration, but what about all these vitriolic "Clinton-haters" who can't see past the previous administration for anything that has the slightest whiff of impropriety? Regardless of what the Clinton administration did or didn't do, RIGHT NOW (and for the past 6 years) Bush has been in office, and using Clinton's past deeds/misdeeds to make this administration look not so bad is a pathetic argument.

There has been plenty of documentation (i.e. proof) here, Ted, but the old adage applies: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Since this horse can't find any water here, are any of you going to post any evidence that the firings were improper, or that any influence was exerted improperly on ongoing investigations? Even the Washington Post has given up, instead focusing on juicy emails. There is simply nothing there, outside wishful thinking and foot-stomping by some democratic politicos. And, much as I hate to mention it, this 'scandal' has awareness of zero outside political-junkie circles. Sorry.

Uh, yeah, the very prosecutors Bush hired (and then fired) told the Senate under oath they were pressured to investigate Democrats or take other action by Rove and Dominici and GOP shills trying to intrude upon the outcome of ongoing investigations in order to help the sagging fortunes of GOP candidates..

Are you saying these Bush appointees are lying republicans?

Then Gonzalez lied and said that they had fired the attorneys only for performance reasons, but the subpoenaed memo from Meier showed they were planning to fire all the US attorneys, who presumably weren't all incompetent. So Gonzalez backtracked and feigned ignorance.

Are you saying that all the US attorneys Bush appointed were incompetent or that Gonzales was lying? WHich one.

Finally notice that we would know none of this if the GOP were still in power and covering up for the Administration. The subpoena power of the Democratic committee brought this to light. It makes you wonder what over high crimes and misdemeanors will soon come to light now that a real Congress is in office.

Are you saying that you'll be posting this under-oath testimony? Haven't seen it yet.

Sooooo, if a GOP operative like Rove tries to influence an ongoing investigation by a GOP appointee in the AG office, and the GOP appointee doesn't report it, there is no crime.

What a perfectly closed circle.





So if I post the testimony, you'll admit you were wrong or are you just stalling because you can't rebut what I said?

Patience, my son. The fat lady hasn't finished singing yet. Since the 6 attorneys' testimony wasn't convincing enough, you'll have to wait until they get the big boys (and girls) up on the stand.

The day you start debating with a modicum of tact will be a bright one around here. Either post them or don't, but it's really annoying to claim things and refuse to link them.

From the Survival Guide.

You mean like the link in the topic post?

Are you only now, after being beaten from pillar to post, claiming the topic posts article in inaccurate? Are you denying that 6 US attorneys testified under oath before a Senate committee and said what the NYT and WSJ and a hundred other newspapers said they said? Are you claiming that the Senate transcripts are forgeries?


This is borderline pitiful.

Thanks. I didn't see your response, and the Times article in the post is behind a registration wall. The only linked testimony implies a political consequence for talking to the press about the firings, nothing about pressure on cases, except from Senator Diminici's phone call ... which is arrogant (nothing new for a Senator) and improper, but really not scandalous. Seriously, White House involvement in firing US attorneys? Whoda thunk it I wish you all a happy fitzmas in advance on this one, but won't hold my breath.

Landru, I'll go back to ignoring your posts; thanks for confirming my instinct.

Please ignore my posts the same way you ignore the news about the 6 attorneys who testified that they were pressured by GOP operatives, which is a clear case of obstruction of justice, which rebuts your claim, just a few posts up, that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.

The evidence comes right from the mouths of Bush's own republican appointees in the AG office!!!!

Normally I don't cut and paste with the purposes of repetition. In this case I'll make an exception. You are attempting to correlate the whitewater scandal as an equally devastating event. You are not succeeding because that scandal centered on personal real estate deals gone bad. The allegations against Clinton never escalated in the firing of 8 attorneys.

These were the "official" allegations leveled against Bill with respect to whitewater.



Let's review the charges against them at the time.
Bill's Allegations:



Hilliary's Allegations


The charges you bring to bear were disproven Ted, and were disproven well before my post. See Daffygrl's comment's



You are not advancing the arguement by claiming parity. You've lost ground. To stay on track I'm switching gears and posting what was a matter of public record through the testimony of David Iglesias.

Watch the clip from Democracy Now about the political purging of U.S. attorneys. David Iglesias is very clear in the unprecedented nature of these requests. It was from Iglesias' stark description which prompted senator Schumer to voice some strong comments.

Schumer's comments underscore the seriousness of the situation, which is why I posted them. Schumer's synopsis is helpful in outlining violations.

This is what you have provided me. There is a reason I will not link newsmax articles and it has to do with content.

Basically you've replaced Bork's op-ed with another op-ed by Mr. Ruddy. Unfortunately this article is a textbook case of slander.

I'm cannot fathom why you are holding disproven allegations on an equal footing here. Instead of providing court testimony which I have, you provide me with an op-ed completely devoid of substance.

What gives?

Mr. Ruddy's defamation of character begins;



But provides no evidence to state his case. He then shifts gears and suggests the whole endeavor was to Hillary’s involvement in the defrauding of the Small Business Administration. Curiously nothing ever happened. Mr. Ruddy moves on to throw in a little patronage via Paula Casey as Bill's buffer between his wife's illicit dealings and his reputation but again provides no detail. He moves on to allege some sabotage to make room for Janet Reno's position but again provides us with nothing.

The rest just reads like a tabloid, snipe, scoff and move on. You have weakened your arguement by posting material of such weak stature Ted, something my ninth grade english teacher would have definitely put you in a headlock detention for.

Were the firings inappropriate?

Not innately, although inappropriate actions might be uncovered in the circumstances surrounding the firings as the dust settles. These are political appointees, not civil servants, so they can be hired and fired, with or without cause, at the will of the President and his administration.

Was the intent of the mass firings to place more malleable Bush-supporters in the positions?

Most such firings, including the Clinton-Reno firings of the entire DOJ staff, are done in order to replace people who may not be on board with the administration's philosophy with those who are willing to follow orders, and rightly so. The reason I doubt any serious wrongdoing this time around is that firing 92 or 93 attourneys for partisan reasons barely rated a mention in one day's news when Clinton did it, but firing only 8 was blown way out of proportion when Shrub did it. That's the modus operandi of most of the partisan press: explaining away minimally embarassing news for Democrats, while trying to spin similar news as monumentally scandalous for Republicans (the press usually does report major Democraticalistic scandals, but only to avoid losing audience).

Setting partisanship aside, the bottom line is that it's neither inherently illegal, unehtical, nor particularly unwise, for any president to replace political appointees who don't agree with the administration's politics; people who believe otherwise should lobby their congresscritters to extend civil service protection to US attorneys so that Bush's staff will keep their jobs after Hillary takes office; or be honest about their partisan motivations (obviously, too much to ask-- my own partisan motivations are served by pointing out the weaknesses is both major parties, but at least I can admit it).

Should an ethics investigation be brought against the Republicans involved?

It's too early to say. Whether related allegations are substantial or not, it reeks of "dragnet politics"-- my phrase for that bipartisan strategy in which something politically damaging (but not illegal or unethical) is investigated for the sole purpose of trapping politicos into giving false or misleading testimony, which can then be prosecuted as a crime. Both parties are equally guilty of dragnet politics. The Republicans used Ken Starr to investigate an alleged crime (sexual harrassment of Paula Jones) to get testimony on similar behavior to establish a pattern, and ended up with an impeachment on perjury for covering up a non-crime. Democrats did almost the same to Scooter Libby; but in his case, the non-crime (outing Valerie Plame) was also staged by DNC operative Joe Wilson, and the perjury it precipitated could easily have fallen in the category of a memory lapse, as dramatically demonstrated during cross-examination of Tim Russert's memory.

In a more apropos dragnet, Hillary Clinton intimidated David Watkins into firing the White House Travel Office and replacing them with her political cronies. The Republicans had a field day, even though there was nothing inherently illegal about firing Travel Office staffers without cause. During Travelgate, it was not the firings themselves that got Hillary into hot water, but the circumstances (alleged corruption) surrounding them, and her false statements under oath during the cover-up. Hillary's Travelgate hot water was almost as deep as Scooter Libby's Plamegame, but not quite. It is incredibly ironic that Hillary Clinton is now calling for the AG's resignation for doing almost exactly what she defended as being perfectly legitimate during Travelgate, which she said was a waste of "millions of dollars" to even investigate, even though the investigation eventually unearthed wrongdoing within the old Travel Office that would have easily justified dismissal, had it been known in advance. Is she now confessing that she was wrong to have fired the Travel Office staff for political reasons? Or is she just trying to get even with her newly-resurrected theory of some "vast right-wing conspiracy" intent on her "personal destruction", terms she conjured to sidestep blame for her scandal-prone administration?

I don't think it's particularly good politics for Democrats to crucify Gonzales over this firing issue instead of something more substantial like his seemingly sinister statements about the nature of Bill of Rights. It would seem that the public is angry enough at Shrub without Democrats needing to wager whatever credibility they might have left on trumped-up allegations of wrongdoing that reek of hypocrisy, and would result only in crippling a future Democrat from firing 8 years worth of Republican appointees. If persuing such questionable issues just because they smell blood in the water is Harry Reed's and Nancy Pelosi's idea of changing "politics-as-usual", 2008 will be a good year for Republicans.

I remember the convictions and, as expected, you fail to mention that the primary reason the Clintons “walked” of this one, while ALL others were jailed is that Ms. McDougal refused to testify. I remember her yelling and screaming at the press “ I will never testify against the Clintons” – after which she was jailed for contempt. – So I am not impressed they got off.

Everyone goes to jail for this but the “lawyer” (Hillary) who knew nothing about what was happening in this dirty deal? And what exactly was McDouglas covering in refusing to answer? AGAIN – Stinks to high heaven.

And why exactly did Bill fire the US Attorney in AK? Just one of the 93? Seems a little odd.


"Susan McDougal, a former Whitewater investment partner of President Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, refused to testify before a federal grand jury Wednesday about the Clintons' role in the celebrated case.
McDougal was promptly found in contempt of court and faces a sentence of 18 months. She already has been sentenced to serve two years in prison for her conviction earlier this summer in a Whitewater related case.
Afterward, McDougal said she was asked three questions in front of the grand jury before being ushered out for refusing to answer.
One question, she said, was: "Did William Jefferson Clinton testify truthfully at your trial?" She said the other two dealt with whether Clinton knew about a loan and property in which the Whitewater corporation had an interest.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N39/whitewater.39w.html

Were the firings inappropriate?

They serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them for any reason, or no reason at all.

Was the intent of the mass firings to place more malleable Bush-supporters in the positions?

Maybe, maybe not; but, they are employees of the Exec Branch and can be summarily dismissed for any reason, or no reason at all.

Should an ethics investigation be brought against the Republicans involved?

No, not unless someone wrote a new law that changed the status of US attys to something other than persons who serve at the pleasure of the President.

End of debate.

As usualy, that's almost entirely made up. Not 'everyone' involved in the scandal were jailed, in fact 15 out of about 40 people under investigation at one point or another were convicted. Second invention, there WAS a scandal, the question was weither the Clintons were involved in it: the primary reason they 'got off' is because three seperate independent investigations found no compelling evidence of impropriety. The Republican attack dog Kenneth Starr kept trying of course, until Starr was replaced, and his replacement Robert Ray ended the inestigations declaring there was insufficient evidence to support any such indeitment. They got off because they were found innocent.

ALL of which, of course, is a total aside to the debate at hand.

Frankly, I agree with an earlier speaker that this is something of a non-event. Bush jr is one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States, and there are DOZENS of errors, misjudgements and examples of incompetence to question him on. This is an irrelevant side story. Yes, perhaps the motives behind the firings were questionable, its certainly possible, though not provable. But even if it IS true, the lawyers are political appointees and they can be fired pretty much at will. As long as none of them were fired for being women or being gay or whatever, then there is no cause for suit, no laws have been broken and this seems much ado about nothing, at at least, much ado about very little.