Clinton/Reno fired 92 Federal Prosecutors

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

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?

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

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

On Oct. 8 [1992], [Attorney General William] Barr convened a joint FBI-Justice Department panel to examine the referral [naming the Clintons as witnesses in the Whitewater case]. But the panel concluded that the referral "failed to cite evidence of any federal criminal offense." The panel's comment about the referral ranged from "junky" and "half-baked" to that its allegations were "reckless, irresponsible" and "odd."

Nevertheless, Barr put a preliminary investigation into motion and ordered Banks to review it again and to report back by Oct. 16, two weeks before the Nov. 3 election.

But, in fact, Banks had already concluded, and the FBI in Little Rock had agreed, that "no action should be taken on the referral at that time." Banks had already prosecuted Jim McDougal in 1990 for alleged bank crimes, and McDougal had been acquitted. Banks said further that he believed "no prosecutable case existed against any of the witnesses," most notably the Clintons.

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

-spence

[Swimmer]

NEBE=fartologist




Thanks for the levity