Clinton/Reno fired 92 Federal Prosecutors

[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

[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!

[mosholu]

When a new administration comes in it is practive to appoint new AGs that are in line with your political views. Those appointments are submitted to the senate for approval. Under the legislation that extended the Patriots Act an additional provisions was put in to allow the appointment of a U

[mosholu]

Sorry for the previous post I hit the wrong key.

When a new administration comes in it is practive to appoint new Attys that are in line with your political views. Those appointments are submitted to the senate for approval. This is part of the check and balances. Under the legislation that extended the Patriots Act an additional provision was put in to allow the appointment of a US Atty without Senate approval. This was to cover instances where an Atty dies or becomes incapacitated and an ongoing investigation or trial would be impaired. It is the use of this provision, intended to help the fight against terrorists, as a means to replace people with political appointments without review by the Senate which is really the issue here. I voted for the guy but his underlings willingness to twist and undermine basic principles of law and sepeartion of powers to extend their power is starting to scare me.

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

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.

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

[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.



-spence

[Swimmer]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

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

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

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.

Hillary was President

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

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Swimmer]

NEBE=fartologist




Thanks for the levity