Help me out here: What are the facts on Clinton firing 93 US Attorneys?

[liberalnurse]

I'm trying to understand the scope of this US attorney issue with Gonzo. As I understand this, it is highly unusual to fire them in the tenure of the appointing President verses when a new President takes office.

I also think I read here yesterday that Clinton never did any such massive firing. That is was a lie Rove created while giving some neo-con speech. So, lets clear this up. Ed Schultz is repeating the Clinton firing 93 U.S Attorneys gargon on his show. If he is wrong, he needs to clear this up.

[sabra]

1. A primer on U.S. attorneys

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=409547&mesg_id=409547

<snip>

Are U.S. attorneys removed when a new president takes office?

Yes. Upon taking office, most presidents choose a new slate of U.S. attorneys. However, U.S. attorneys may stay on for a time if they are in the midst of a major investigation or prosecution.

...

Are U.S. attorneys regularly removed from office at the direction of the White House?

No. Officials of past Republican and Democratic administrations say they were unaware of an instance when a large group of U.S. attorneys was dismissed at once.


Do U.S. attorneys carry out the political wishes of the White House?

Most lawyers draw a sharp distinction between policies and partisan politics. The White House or the Justice Department could tell U.S. attorneys to bring more prosecutions for drugs, pornography or immigration violations without raising eyebrows. However, they say it would be disturbing for a Republican president or his advisors to press a U.S. attorney to bring charges against a Democratic official, or vice versa.

"They take seriously their oath of office that forbids political partisanship," said Harvard law professor Philip B. Heymann, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. "It would be destructive for our system if U.S. attorneys saw themselves as owing their first loyalty to the party that appointed them."

[liberalnurse]

8. Thank you Sabra!

Now we need to clarify exactly what Clinton did since the right "always" says that they are above Clinton etc......We need our talking points on this. I would like to see more of these fired U.S Attorneys on left radio and drill the facts out.

[FARAFIELD]

2. Well then did bush fire all OF clintons?

wHY ARE THEY just saying clinton did it? DID he? I dont believe anything they say, also if presidents fire them all did BUSH, or are they not fired but rathered awaiting the news?

[etherealtruth]

11. It's called "spin"

My understanding is that when a new administration comes to power....USAs (like most political) appointments tender their resignations .... the new admin. accepts them and makes their own political appointments.

The reason this is not explained is to give an impression ... facts are important , but they must be presented in context.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Clinton, reagan, bush 1

(and possibly others) replaced the US Attorneys upon taking office. A common and accepted practice. However, there was no effort by Clinton, Reagan etc to effect political maneuverings on a massive scale by threatening attorneys with their jobs once they got in office. I do believe Clinton fired one US Attorney. The bush criminals originally planned to fire all 93 again and only for political purposes. Cooler heads prevailed and they cherry picked the one's whom they considered the greatest threat to the great and honorable bush administration. Kinda the way "christians" cherry pick the bible for passages which justify their hate and ignore the one's which are inconvenient to them. The Clinton did it too nonsense is just right wing noise machine posturing and incorrect. If Clinton jumped off a cliff would bush follow? If Clinton committed murder and bush did too it would all be right?

[meegbear]

4. Here's a link to a post ...

The Wall Street Journal gives facts then tries to twist them

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=409621

[Warpy]

5. He did clean house when he came into office in 1993

as do other presidents upon taking office. Most clean house only of overtly partisan prosecutors (Clinton obviously missed a couple), and it's completely expected. Only during Nixon's term was that pattern altered...until now. There are ethical guidlines that should prevent any president from dismissing any prosecutor from an ongoing and sensitive case. The lawyers here will have to tell us if that's a legal restriction, also.

This is just the Saturday Night Massacre Part 2.

I'm guessing Carol Lam was the real target and the other 7 were just window dressing so it wouldn't be as obvious how partisan this whole thing is. She was getting much to close to the DOD-military contractor-GOP money laundering pipeline.

[Bitwit1234]

6. They have the whole story on the front page of DU..

Take a gander.

[liberalnurse]

10. Okay....I'm running over there

right now.................:hi:

[GeorgeGist]

7. Try this link ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3161474

[aquart]

9. You are confusing apples and oranges.

Innocently, I do hope.

Administrations traditionally appoint their own people from long lists of experienced, excellent, highly recommended people willing to commit to public service. Their efficiency and dedication will shine a light on the administration and hold it in history as a model of good government. That's the plan. Clinton did it. Bush did it. These are all Bush appointees we're talking about.

What Bush did is fire anyone who was not willing to begin false and corrupt investigations of Democrats for purely polical purposes. He also fired anyone he could reach who was seriously investigating Republicans. Like Carol Lam.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. Sorry, didn't mean to post as a reply to your post.

Go to the source in the other DU thread and read it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3161474

Edited

[TerdlowSmedley]

13. There was nothing improper nor unusual about an incoming

President replacing his predecessor's US Attorneys. They are also subject to Senate confirmation. That WAS the case, anyway, when Clinton took office. However, we now know that a provision was sneaked into the Patriot Act that allows the President to fire US Attorneys and replace them with "interim" appointments that are NOT subject to Senate confirmation. They can serve indefinitely. It's pretty obvious that this rule was slipped into this dangerous legislation for this very slimy purpose, replacing independent-minded attorneys with Bush toadies.

[liberalnurse]

14. The Patriot Act

had to be designed way, way before 911.

[AllegroRondo]

15. It is incredibly rare for a US Attourney to be fired.

In the last 25 years, only 3 have been fired (until last year, of course)
Nixon fired one
Carter fired one
and Clinton fired one

[Richard Steele]

16. Ed Schultz repeating republican BS? I'm shocked.

SHOCKED, I tells ya!

:sarcasm:

[Cha]

17. Here's babylonsister's

front page thread that shines some light..

"Gonzales Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors Too
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/sampson-rove-attorn... /

Gonzales Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors Too

At a speech last week in Little Rock, Karl Rove described the Bush administration’s purge of federal prosecutors as “normal and ordinary,” claiming that Clinton did the same thing. “Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys,” Rove said. “When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. … What happened in this instance, was there were seven done all at once, and people wanted to play politics with it.” Watch it:

But in an e-mail to Harriet Miers on Jan. 9, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday) admitted that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision."

Oh, those Pesky emails sent to fellow connivers.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3159804

[stanwyck]

18. Another major distinction

between Clinton's "regime change" firings and the current Bush firings: under the Patriot Act (obviously not in play during Clinton's terms) the Attorney General now has the power to appoint federal attorneys for an unspecified amount of time WITH NO OVERVIEW. The Senate does not have to approve the nominations.
And that's major.
These firings, done during mid-term -- not at the beginning of an administration (like Clinton and Reagan) were clearly political hits.
Rove wanted to groom his hand-picked boys for future elected office. And exact some payback for attorneys who failed to prosecute those Rove wanted prosecuted. And who prosecuted (Duke Cunningham)those he didn't want prosecuted.
The usual regime change firings are partisan. Yes. But this is a different breed of cat. This was personal, vindictive, and involved pressure from senators and representatives who wanted to thwart ongoing investigations.
Phone calls were made. Threats were issued. And Uncle Karl had his hand in from the beginning.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. Alex Witless on MSNBC started to spew this lie this morning and I shut her off. Someone

has to clarify this loud and strong.

[B Calm]

20. President Clinton didn't fire 93 US Attorneys, he replaced them. This

is a normal and ordinary process for a new President. Bush on the other hand FIRED US Attorneys for political purposes. Hopefully, this new Bush scandal will stay in the news!

[liberalnurse]

21. I'm getting the feel for this now....

The key term to apply is REPLACEMENT. I'm coming out of the fog! :smoke:

[Breeze54]

23. Turn on PBS NewsHour! They are covering it in full- NOW!

Turn off Schwartz! :spank:

What b* co. did was vindictive and conniving!

-----------------

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

Attorney General
Legal experts consider the revelations about the firing of eight U.S.
attorneys and the possible impacts on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Immigration
President Bush called on Congress to pass immigration reform legislation during
a trip to Mexico. Analysts talk about the challenges of passing such a bill.

YouTube Lawsuit
Viacom sued the video-sharing Web site YouTube for $1 billion for copyright infringement.
A guest explains the possible effects.

[WinkyDink]

22. Let's put it this way; if what Bushco did was "the same" and "innocuous", Gonzo wouldn't have

been in front of a TV camera, sweating.