But Didn’t Clinton Fire A Bunch Of Attorneys?
That’s the meme being offered around the right-wing noise machine.
McClatchy Newspapers has more:
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration and its defenders like to point out that President Bush isn’t the first president to fire U.S. attorneys and replace them with loyalists.While that’s true, the current case is different. Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected.
Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term.
Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term.
So the situations, while appearing similar, are not. And yet…
…Bush aide Dan Bartlett noted Clinton’s first term firings in defending Bush’s second term dismissals.“Those discretionary decisions made by a president, by an administration, are often done,” he told reporters Tuesday.
It always goes back to Clinton.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
42 Responses to “But Didn’t Clinton Fire A Bunch Of Attorneys?”
Everything is Clinton’s fault, isn’t it? Let’s go back to Reagan then. Remember how he made us proud again? Now we’re in Iraq. They say pride always comes before a fall
Ah, you are being selective in telling your story here. That is the only way you can defend the double standard.
Clinton’s wholesale firings of every US attorney was UNPRECEDENTED. In 1993 conservatives complained, but the media just said: “What’s your problem? He has the authority to do this.”
You note Reagan. Yet Regan DID NOT fire every US attorney from the Carter era when he took office.
Go ahead. Look it up.
He let their terms and investigations wind down, and fired piecemeal. Clinton’s action was unprecedented in its partisan treatment of what is, admittedly, a patronage appointment.
“Right wing noise machine?”
Look at the howls on Memeorandum…The inevitable calls for a Special Prosecutor from George Soros’ CREW….FDL trying to pin this on Rove.
It is the GREAT LIBERAL NOISE machine at work here!.
Defend Clinton…Bash Bush…change the subject…tell only part of the story…
Justin, in fairness, I acknowledge that these points are in the paper you cited. I assumed however, from the “right wing noise machine” observation, that you share this view.
From my POV, one is not hearing much at all from this fabled “noise machine”. Almost all the noise here is from the left.
Including BREAKING stories about Hillary’s shock and outrage…and her demand that the AG be fired.
The full story: her pal Web Hubbell masterminded the 1993 massacre, conveniently removing the US attorney who was looking into Hubbell (and Hillary’s) own law office dealings in Arkansas.
If Hillary is elected, it will be sweet to see the MSM and the left of the blogosphere defending her massacre of Bush’s appointees. “It’s not the same thing at all…”
Clinton. Doesn’t. Matter.
I don’t care what Clinton did, it’s just not relevent to the current situation.
The issue is not whether the President can fire USA’s, of course he can.
The issue is that, as is becoming apparent from the just released DoJ emails, these Republican prosecutors were fired either because of their lack of enthusiasm for pursuing indictments of Democrats, or, in Carole Lam’s case, being too enthusiastic about pursuing corrupt Republicans.
That’s the scandal, and nothing Clinton did or did not do changes it.
Clinton wasn’t squeaky clean. I’ll grant you he probably wanted to get rid of the US atty in Arkansas, who had been investigating Web Hubbell.
But this isn’t the first time that Gonzales interfered with a criminal investigation. Even back in 2002 the Bush administration demoted Frederick Black, a ten year veteran of the office, who had been investigating the governor of Guam and his connection with Jack Abramoff. After Black’s demotion, his successor claimed a conflict of interest, and the entire probe was dropped.
BTW, the government under Clinton wasn’t dysfunctional. He didn’t pick sycophants like Harriet Miers or Gonzo, who had been his own personal attorneys. Bush will never be able to measure up to Clinton, as flawed as Clinton was, he still was a great leader.
Just a thought. If George W Bush had followed the “Great Communicator”, Ronald Reagan, instead of Bill Clinton, how would Republican talking points have been written? Would they still have blamed all of his misjudgements on a former president?
One thing about his father, 41 took criticism on the chin for his mistakes, the way a true leader is supposed to. He didn’t try to blame the recession on Reaganomics, or problems with the Iranians on Jimmy Carter. Maybe the Bush apologists should take a page out of his book.
If the W administration did this in 2001 or 2005 it wouldn’t be a story. If they didn’t spin/lie about the firings it wouldn’t be a story. The gang that couldn’t shoot straight, shoot themselves if the foot. Is it illegal, no; but, it is incompetence, stupidity and arrogance typical of this bunch.
I thought the GOP was supposed to be the party of personal responsibility??? But whenever there’s a screw-up its always—Clinton did it too or Clinton was even worse. When Clinton left office his poll numbers were twice as high as Georgie’s are on a good day- so he must have done something right.
There are lots of things the GOP claims to be but so far all I’ve seen is six years of lip service and media spin coupled with incompetence, arrogance, hypocricy and failure.
I think people are missing the fundamental point:
The president fired US attorneys who were Senate approved,
so that he could replace them with ones who weren’t.
That “little known line” in the Patriot Act didn’t get there by accident.
Like many issues these days, it seems this issue is becoming a purely political issue, which is a shame as it gets in the way of actually solving the problems that are being exposed. The far left is screaming for Karl Rove’s and Alberto Gonzales’ heads, the far right is either ignoring the issue or blaming the left for blowing another issue out of proportion, and in the mean time we’re not doing anything about the issue of protecting separation of power by ensuring that laws aren’t enforced or ignored based on political affiliation.
It’s scary these days that no matter what the issue, the screaming from the extremes tends to drown out any hope for substantiative debate and solutions. Whether it’s Obama, McCain, or someone else, hopefully 2008 will restore some semblance of governing by compromise, rather than governing by demonization of the opposition.
“Just a thought. If George W Bush had followed the “Great Communicatorâ€?, Ronald Reagan, instead of Bill Clinton, how would Republican talking points have been written? Would they still have blamed all of his misjudgements on a former president?”
That’s missing the point. The beef that conservatives have is one of hypocrisy – that Democrats scream and shout about this possible scandal while conveniently ignoring what members of their own party have done. I think it’s rather telling where commenter’s politics are by how the compare Clinton’s actions with Bush’s. In my view, Clinton’s firing of all the attorneys was at least equally condemnable, if not more so, that the firing of the nine. Yet the partisans here on the democratic side attempt to find justifications for what Clinton did while at the same time try to find fault with what Bush did. By the same token, partisans on the right make the opposite argument.
In the partisan lefts’ attempts to find qualitative difference between what Clinton and Bush did, you see some pretty silly arguments. For example: It’s somehow disturbing or “political” to fire a few people that that one President appointed himself, but it’s completely normal and acceptable to fire almost every single person your political opponent appointed. Apparently Clinton thought no single attorney was qualified to serve in that position once he took office and only the intervention of a fellow Democrat saved Chertoff. That’s not political or politically motivated? Would it have been qualitatively different if Clinton had only fired the Arkansas attorney? Is it really possible that none of those attorney’s could have altered their priorities to match Clinton’s policies? It’s clear that Clinton’s firings were more politically astute because he was able to get rid of a few undesirables by wiping the slate clean. Maybe Bush should have done the same.
Secondly, there’s this argument that since few President’s have fired attorneys they’ve appointed that it’s somehow wrong when one finally does – it’s what I call the “precedent fallacy.” Are you people seriously suggesting that if a President doesn’t like an attorney he/she appoints he/she shouldn’t fire them? Frankly, it seems a LOT less political to fire someone you appointed than to fire someone your political opponent did.
I will concede there is the possibility that the Bush firings were motivated by a lack of partisanship by a few of the attorneys fired. If that proves to be true, then the AG should either resign or be forced to. But, please, let’s be fair and not make specious arguments about Clinton. What he did was wrong and disruptive of the Judicial system.
So you partisans both right and left, in my view you’re no better and largely no different from those you’re condemning. It’s classic political spin, plain and simple.
What Ryan H said.
The controversy is over whether the legal system is being used for political ends. The firings are just a symptom.
If US attorneys are being fired for not indicting Democrats, or for investigating Republicans then we’re seeing an abuse of power.
If professional attorneys are being fired to make way for political hacks (like Rove’s aide) we’re seeing the next Brownie crisis unfold before our eyes.
If you can point to a similar action by Clinton, please let the rest of us hear about it. While you’re at it, you might want to explain why he never fired Janet Reno.
Mikef,
“If US attorneys are being fired for not indicting Democrats, or for investigating Republicans then we’re seeing an abuse of power.
If professional attorneys are being fired to make way for political hacks (like Rove’s aide) we’re seeing the next Brownie crisis unfold before our eyes.”
Agreed – I’ll wait and see what happens.
We’ll never know if Clinton’s firings were “similar actions” because they were never investigated with the possible exception of the Arkansas attorney. I don’t know why Clinton never fired Reno – if I was President, I sure would have. Her and Gonzalez are competing for the worst AG of all time.
I think we’ll just have to wait to see how this plays out. The talk now concerns apparent ‘misstatements’under oath during Congressional hearings by both Gonzales and his aide. If true, that could be quite serious in itself. Apparently they are contradicted by the E-mail.
Are we in for another Libby moment of forgetfulness?
Marlow-
I suspect we hear little from Republicans because a number of them are as upset as the Democrats. One was on PBS saying so (I forgot his name), and he claimed to be speaking for other Repubs as well.
He wasn’t so upset that it was done, but he felt that there had been an effort to bypass Congress and to mislead it.
Granted, the Dems are milking it for all its worth, but I think it’s also a matter of asserting the Congress’s right to know what is going on.
I think that’s an important point. A sleepwalking Congress hasn’t worked out so well during the past few years.
“Clinton’s action was unprecedented in its partisan treatment of what is, admittedly, a patronage appointment.”
Well, and so what? We don’t need to discuss this, because Bush actually pledged in 2000 “to restore honesty and integrity to the White House”, as a rebutal of Clinton’s politics. So, how can his administration use Clinton’s precedents as an excuse now?
Besides, Marlowe, you’re generally a reasonable guy. Regardless if Clinton’s action was right or wrong: Do you think that the DoJ’s firing of the attorneys, allegedly because of bad job performance, but really because they didn’t comply with illegal requests to go ahead with cases against Dems, in spite of missing evidence, is proper adminisrative action? That’s the question here, and it seems to me you, and most other conservatives, are avoiding answering it by simply pointing at Clinton instead.
:-/
“Besides, Marlowe, you’re generally a reasonable guy.”
No misunderstanding: Don’t want to flatter you, this is my way of saying: Your statements here aren’t up to your standard. Don’t simply spread Rovian talking points, like all the other parrots!
Ryan H and Entropy are exactly right. Every time that something comes up which indicates potential abuse of Executive power by Bush, a lot of people who lean right are concerned about it but we try to separate the truth from the hyperbole. In doing so, many times it is necessary to compare Bush’s actions with past presidents. In my view, this includes not only Clinton but all previous presidents. Clinton is memorable for certain abuses himself, although the left always seemed to give him a pass. So when we bring up these issues, it is not to excuse ANYTHING that Bush has done, it is to look at the situation and determine where Bush may have overstepped and where his actions might actually indicate a pattern by other presidents.
So the question is, are we willing to hold presidents of both parties accountable? I’m personally disturbed by the political nature of these appointments by Clinton AND Bush, and I want the process altered so that this cannot happen. I do think the point about the new provision in the Patriot Act is a move in the wrong direction because it removes a layer of oversight. But I’d want to go farther than reversing that and actually say that presidents should only be able to fire these judges for cause, not on a whim.
Will people on both sides of the aisle agree with that??
Uhh…meant to write “fire these attorneys”, not “judges”, of course.
“So when we bring up these issues, it is not to excuse ANYTHING that Bush has done, it is to look at the situation and determine where Bush may have overstepped and where his actions might actually indicate a pattern by other presidents.”
Well, it sure looks like excusing Bush, CS, cause that analyzing you mentioned is totally missing from the discussion!
Why don’t you set a positive example on how reasonable conservatives treat this issue by answering the real question:
Do you think that the DoJ’s firing of the attorneys, allegedly because of bad job performance, but really because they didn’t comply with illegal requests to go ahead with cases against Dems, in spite of missing evidence, is proper adminisrative action?
Or, do say it more simple: Do you think this sis how the DoJ should be run?
Well Gray, how about if you read my whole comment first before responding? Here’s your analysis (AGAIN):
I read it, but imho it’s too general to be a comment on the scandal at the DoJ. This doesn’t say anything about if the firing of the attorneys was legal or illegal (illegal, imho, since it was an interference with justice). And this doesn’t specifically say you think the administration provided a false clause for explaining the decision.
Btw, were speaking about US attorneys, they’re prosecutors, not judges. Judges can’t simply be fired (yet).
Gray,
You really do read selectively, don’t you? I already corrected my error in writing “judges” instead of “attorneys” (but I didn’t repeat the correction when I referenced my original statements cause I assumed you’d go back and see that).
And on the legality/illegality of the current situation? I don’t know enough yet to make that judgment. The politicization of these appointments is what I object to at this point, and when I learn more about what was actually taking place in each instance then I may come to a more specific opinion about the ethics and legality.
“You really do read selectively, don’t you?”
Not really, but only important info makes it into my memory…
Sry, you’re right. Forgot about your correction above. I apologize.
“I don’t know enough yet to make that judgment.”
Well, again, my memory is bad, but I can’t remember you ever abstained from critizising Dems with that argument. And don’t we not know a lot right now about Republican Senators inquiring about investigations on their political adversairies, then complaining at the WH, and how this info was relayed to the DoJ? Or maybe let’s just assume that a US attorney was fired esentially because he annoyed a Senator with his refusal to start a case without proper evidence. Would that be ok with you? Just normal political procedure?
Gray,
Since you have brought up hypothetical arguments, let me put one to you. If there was an allegation against Republican operatives in a particular location plotting to obstruct voting in certain districts, and the US attorney who had jurisdiction appeared by the Democratic candidate to be dragging his heels on the investigation (perhaps saying that there was insufficient evidence, but the Dem felt that this atty was not actively looking for evidence as he should be once this allegation was made), then would that Democratic candidate be within his rights to complain to DOJ? And if there was a sitting Democratic president who heard about these complaints, should he not ask the AG to look into it? And if the claims turned out to have some merit, then should it be legal and legitimate for the US Attorney to be fired if he refused to look into it further?
I’m presenting this as the reverse party affiliation of the current situation of course and assuming that there is at least SOME potential for the claims that were made of possible voting fraud plots by Dems against Republicans to be true. I have no idea of whether or not these claims had any merit, and I don’t think that you have any way of knowing that at this point either. If you’ve examined evidence in the case, then please provide links and references. If you are unable to do so, then I hope by looking at the situation without partisan lenses might help you to see that there could be more here than meets the eye in at least some of these firings.
But none of that changes my opinion that these appointments really shouldn’t be political at all. In fact if the change that I suggested were to be made, then the president would ONLY have the ability to fire US attorneys if there were proof of just cause; and in the hypothetical that I mentioned, he’d have to be able to show that the attorneys were not investigating something that should have been investigated.
To perhaps be more clear, Gray, what I’m saying is that if the Republican senators truly asked for the attorneys to be fired because they were annoyed by them or because the attorneys wouldn’t do their bidding, then that is clearly wrong. But if the senators asked for action to be taken because the attorneys were doing the bidding of their political opponents, then it was perfectly acceptable for them to ask for action to be taken.
“If there was an allegation against Republican operatives in a particular location plotting to obstruct voting in certain districts, and the US attorney who had jurisdiction appeared by the Democratic candidate to be dragging his heels on the investigation (perhaps saying that there was insufficient evidence, but the Dem felt that this atty was not actively looking for evidence as he should be once this allegation was made), then would that Democratic candidate be within his rights to complain to DOJ?”
Sure. In an official, transparent way. I would recommend writing a formal letter. And if it turns out that the attorney checked back with the FBI, and they have nothing to base a case on, the complaining candidate should apologize to his adversary, and to the US attorney and the DOJ as well.
“And if there was a sitting Democratic president who heard about these complaints, should he not ask the AG to look into it?”
No. Not his job. He has to put trust in his officials to do theirs. Everything else is unprofessional micromanaging. And if the complaint is already at the DoJ, the AG should have knowledge of it. How does the pres come into play anyhow?
“I’m presenting this as the reverse party affiliation of the current situation of course and assuming that there is at least SOME potential for the claims that were made of possible voting fraud plots by Dems against Republicans to be true. I have no idea of whether or not these claims had any merit, and I don’t think that you have any way of knowing that at this point either.”
Now, if you “have no idea”, why assume “that there is at least SOME potential for the claims”? Guilty until proven innocent? However, Krugman cited a study some days ago that showed that for every federal case opened on a Republican, seven (7!) Dems are invetigated. Do you think this is a proper mage of the political realities, or does this maybe show that political considerations play a role in the decisions of US attorneys?
“But if the senators asked for action to be taken because the attorneys were doing the bidding of their political opponents, then it was perfectly acceptable for them to ask for action to be taken.”
Nothing in the news suggests that there is any evidence that McKay for instance did anything remotely like ‘bidding’ for Dems. He checked with the FBI if there was something to the accusations, they had nothing, so he didn’t open up a case. That’s what he told the Senator. What Domenici wanted was illegally starting a prosecution for political purposes. He wanted McKay to do his bidding. That’s illegal. And this sure isn’t a proper reason to complain at the DoJ.
Ah, now we’re getting to the source of your bias, Gray. Pat over at Stubborn Facts has shown how flimsy that Krugman piece is; there are so many points on which Pat showed him to be selective in his reporting of ‘fact’ that I’ll just refer you over there to check it out.
Gray, you’ve got this backward. I’m the one saying that the Senator is innocent until proven guilty (and by extension, Gonzales and Bush are too). And I’m not saying that I know or even believe that they aren’t guilty, but until I see more evidence of what actually happened, I assume that I can’t determine the guilt. You, on the other hand, have taken small bits of information that support your position and assumed them to be true without hearing the rest of the story if there is a rest of the story. What if the claim that you mentioned about McKay isn’t true, that he didn’t actually check with the FBI about the accusations or that he didn’t take other measures that would have been appropriate? What sources are you using for details of this information anyway? I’ve had difficulty finding anything that goes into the individual cases.
“I’m the one saying that the Senator is innocent until proven guilty (and by extension, Gonzales and Bush are too).”
Just a moment, it’s ok for you to assume that there something to the unbased accusations that Dems are involved in widespread voter fraught, but not for me to assume that irregularies did happen at the WH and the DoJ, even though there is ecidence, testimony and emails, at least supporting this view? Some double standard here?
As for the story on the accuracy of the Shields/Cragan story, rthx for pointing this out, I’ll look into it (but not now, have some things to do in RL).
“What sources are you using for details of this information anyway?”
McKay’s own statement at the House, and several statemens in the press. For a good round up, check here:.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703140007
The FBI had several days to protest his account if it’s wrong in any way, they didn’t. So it’s safe to assume its correct.
Btw, I confused McKay and Iglesisas: McKay was called by Hastings’ staffer, Iglesias got called by Domnici personally. Sry for the mixup.
Gray, come on now. Where did I assume that there IS something to the accusations of voter fraud? I specifically said that I have no idea if the accusations had merit or not (however, I note that you used the adjective “unbased”: so you are the one who has already decided the case without seeing all the evidence, apparently).
Do you really not understand the difference between me saying that there COULD be something to the allegations and that I’d like to know if the US atty involved investigated the complaints properly, and the other situation that you allege where I would be assuming that there WAS something to the allegations? Sheesh, come on now, you are brighter than this.
I don’t think it’s safe to assume that at all. There could be any number of reasons for no one to have come forward yet and you are jumping to conclusions.
Interesting too, in that Seattle Times article which was linked from your mediamatters link, apparently no one denies that felons voted illegally in the razor thin win in the gubernatorial election. The reason the case was dismissed was because the state had mailed the ballots to the felons, so they knew that it would be too hard to prove that the voters had reason to know that they were voting illegally.
But you know, voter fraud is just a myth propogated by the vast right wing conspiracy.
Entropy -”That’s missing the point. The beef that conservatives have is one of hypocrisy – that Democrats scream and shout about this possible scandal while conveniently ignoring what members of their own party have done. I think it’s rather telling where commenter’s politics are by how the compare Clinton’s actions with Bush’s.”
Reagan also fired all or most of the US Attorneys, once their terms expired. Its not that unusual to do so at the start of a president’s term. What was unusual about Clinton, was that he waited until Reno was confirmed and then fired them all in one day. BTW, I do think he took some political heat for it, but that’s entirely different than ranking the 93 attys in order of loyalty and then firing certain ones that refuse to play ball. Clinton had his problems in the WH, I’m not denying it, but he’s paid the price, which is more than I can say for Bush/Cheney/Rove. I think character is important, but it also has to be balanced against competence. Your guy has neither, so why are you so hell bent on defending his corrupt practices?
From CS:
“I do think the point about the new provision in the Patriot Act is a move in the wrong direction because it removes a layer of oversight. But I’d want to go farther than reversing that and actually say that presidents should only be able to fire these judges (sic: attorneys) for cause, not on a whim.”
I’d say this is the issue that should be dominating the discussion, but it’s instead a witch hunt / Clinton-did-it-too discussion. The issue that this event demonstrates is that justice needs to be carried without regards to partisan affiliation. A first step would be removing the Patriot Act provision, which would address this particular problem, but it would also be good if debate addressed the core of the problem, namely that those given jobs within the government should be given those jobs based on performance and qualification, rather than ideology or contacts. Clinton is irrelevant in such a discussion, as are the witch hunts being called for by the left.
uhh…what was the question?
shouldn’t the argument be over whether or not removing attorney’s from their posts due to political affiliation is of benefit or detriment to the republic?
an actual debate on an issue is something that doesn’t really happen. those who do take time to stay somewhat informed demonstrate their reliance on news received from mainstream media when their banter is copious with bias commensurate with their outlet of choice.
the matter is this: if we tolerate the removal of these attorneys, by republican or democrat alike, we acknowledge that this customary and partisan influence on our justice system is not a threat to the the union. if it was ok for clinton to do it, then it’s ok for bush to do it. if it’s ok for bush, then it’s ok for clinton. we did it, so you can do it or you did it so we can do it; lest we both be hypocrites.
again, if we tolerate the appointment and dismissal of these attorneys in a way that reflects the whimsical and fleeting power of a majority party’s reign, then that’s fine. but the real questions we should be asking, since republicans and democrats alike are both propense to this practice, is whether or not these members of our judiciary ought to come and go in such a manner. if we believe this is fine, then our party allegiance does not matter. if we believe this practice is detrimental to the union, again, your party does not matter.
if after debate we come to believe the practice is alright, then we demonstrate our belief and hold our representatives responsible for actuating it. furthermore, if after debate we come to believe the practice is of detriment, then we hold those who have carried out an act detrimental to the republic accountable.
this, i believe, was our intended role; to hold those who represent us accountable after we have decided on our own that which adheres to the public good. unfortunately, we seem like preschoolers who constantly invoke the “he did it first” in defense of any alleged wrong doing. in reality and in all applications, this “defense” tacitly admits guilt.
Yes, “he did it first” would be a lousy defense in the case of wrong doing but unless there is a law against firing judges (and no one has made this assertion that I have seen) then it falls to a case of lousy decision making, or questionable politics, or some other intellectual malady — or nothing at all. Ultimately “we the people” need to decide if this is the way we want our country to work then change it or live with it. Everything else in between these points is simply unquestionably partisan politics.
umm…. the reason why Clinton is being dragged into this is because we need a standard to see if this crap has happened before. Does the president have the right to fire his political appointees? Yes. Has it happened before? Yes. Was Clinton in hot water for doing it? No. Why? People say it’s because it’s the ‘way’ he did, like that matters. Simple question, was it illegal? I don’t care for the reason or the timing, I just want to know if what he actually did is cause for legal actions. From what I heard, no, no it isn’t.