Clinton/Reno fired 92 Federal Prosecutors
 

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.

Truthfully I believe it was 93 persecutors that Reno fired.

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

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".

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.

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...

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.:bshake:

Well said!

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

is it '09 yet? :yawn:

Hmmmmmmm....

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

-spence

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.

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

-spence

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.

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

-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.

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 :jump:

-spence

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Not anymore according to the senate.

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

Ok, now you're just spinning.

There's a huge difference between, I'd like to have Federal Prosecutors who share a common legal viewpoint, so I think I'll nominate them and let the Sentate confirm them...and in all but the most extreme circumstances let them serve out my term so you can do your job without fear of political influence.

Than, well, I thought we shared a common political viewpoint, but you seem to be spending a little too much time upholding the laws in ways that are causing me pain. So I think I'm going to fire you now midstream and replace you with someone of my choosing alone, that's going to do a much better job of following my political agenda...

And when questioned about it, I'll say it's for performance reasons. And when that's proved to be not accurate I'll just make something up, and point fingers, and then blame the media for a witch hunt.

It's called impropriety.

-spence

Wow...the Senate votes 96-4 to require Bush to present all appointments for Senate approval.

The subpoenas are starting to fly. As a citizen of the USA it's quite refreshing to see bi-partisan oversight and the healing of our government.

:lurk:

-spence

The president gets to appoint judges with common political viewpoints why not AG's?

When Hillary was president what was that mess she got herself and the first man into over travelgate. She had those people canned for telling the truth and nothing happened. Didn't her friend end up going to jail and she and Bill skated. Refresh my memory Spence, please? And I'm not being a wiseass by asking.

That's not the issue here, please reread the thread :)

Hillary was President :hs: :laugha:

I don't remember exactly, but it's a moot issue. How come some people keep returning on the old "two wrongs make it right" line of defense?

-spence

I think its more like people keep returning to the old "double standard" line of reasonable thought. By the way wasn't one of the prosecutors let go by Clinton involved in the Whitewater investigation, or is it out of bounds to mention that? And history isn't moot.

It's not out of bounds, it's just a meaningless talking point :hihi:

1) The prosecutor in place was fired along with the other 93 in a routine dismissal and replaced via Senate approval.

2) It's been reported that the prosecutor who was fired, a Bush appointee had actually resisted investigating Whitewater despite pressure from the Bush administration to do so



3) After years and millions of taxpayers money spent investigation Whitewater during Clinton's presidency, the investigation ended without any claims of wrongdoing

So the characterization that Clinton fired a specific Federal Prosecutor to impeed an investigation into his own dealings is simply not supported by the facts.

You know, some grapes would go nicely in your salad. And those little mandarin oranges :drool:

-spence

"I's been reported"? Sounds like spin to me.
How about Jay Stephens who was midway through an investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski who was indicted and convicted (and later pardoned of course) despite Clintons best effort to protect him. Does the fact he was one of 92 excuse that? Just routine right? Sorry Spence but Bush is no worse than Slick in this case. Just another case of the old double standard. Theres plenty more documented reasons why Clinton dismissed 92 FP's, I'll keep them coming if you want.

I hear grapes go better with Kool-Aid, is that true?

Follow the link, read the quotes, do some work instead of just ignoring the evidence and reciting anything, anything you can scrounge up to obfuscate the situation.

Did Clinton mislead Congress as to the motivation for his firings? Did Clinton dismiss prosecutors mid-term so the rest had to watch their backs? When Reagan or Bush 41 or Bush 43 did the same thing did they interrupt any existing cases against government officials?

I'd bet they did.

Clinton's own appointed replacement continued the investigation, indicted and convicted Rostenkowski!

The prosecutors appointed from both parties did their jobs in enforcing the laws. The Sentate provided oversight...

The system worked.

Why don't ya grab these...

-spence

LMAO............So Clinton supported the investigation and prosecution of Rostenkowski, right? That must be why he pardoned him. This thread was not intended to defend Bush or prosecute Clinton, it's intent was to point out a double standard that we witness in play by the media everyday. If you dont see it your blind. You have posted nothing that dispels that common belief. Clinton dismissed those prosecutors because he felt they didn't share his priorities, likewise Bush. Like it or not that is their perogative. I'm still waiting for Sandy Burglars lie detector test, but the media seems to have forgotten about that. His crime was and is far more serious than this media blitzkrieg, but they dont like to talk about that.

Good God man, now you're mixing your talking points.

Clinton supporting the Rostenkowski's prosecution isn't the question, of course he didn't. But he clearly did allow the system to indict and convict, so one would assume he didn't fire the prosecutor to impeed the investigation as so many would like to think.

If the pardon was ethical is a separate issue.

Have you read a thing I've posted, or do you just blindly cut and paste from goptalkingpointsmemo.com?

This entire scandal arose because the Justice Department appears to have misled the US Congress.

It's exploding because the Executive Branch is declaring executive authority to impeed an investigation to see if this is really true.

Would you like me to go back 10 years or so and print to quotes of Clinton's attack dogs, crying foul at his shameless use of executive privelage to limit transparancy? With all that Clinton still allowed some 41 aides to testify under oath!

Your bushbotic GOP gyro-coding has you on your head, and you think everyone else is upside down!

-spence