Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: You're quoting an editorial, moron. Mine's from a former Attorney General. Get a clue. | |
|
Author: Mo' Green |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:59:23 03/15/07 Thu In reply to: Oropan 's message, "WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on 13:48:59 03/15/07 Thu >Right from my Wall Street Journal link above: > >"At the time, President Clinton presented the move as >something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are >routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have >not done anything differently." In fact, the >dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, >including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both >retained holdovers from the previous Administration >and only replaced them gradually as their tenures >expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within >the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition." > > > > > > > > >> >>>AND both Carter and Reagan did not fire all the >>>attorneys when they took office. >>Right wing talkins points duped you again: >> >>"Stuart M. Gerson: There is a difference, but I do not >>find it to be an important or material one. It is >>customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at >>the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every >>sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first >>Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me >>as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few >>permanent candidates in mind. What is unusual about >>the current situation is that it happened in the >>middle of a term. However, all of the incumbents had >>served more than the four years presumed in their >>original commission and, I suggest, replacing them is >>entirely the prerogative of the executive, as each >>deposed U.S. Attorney has agreed. The personnel >>practices employed, giving inaccurate reasons for >>terminating them and not giving them the courtesy of >>notice, are, as the AG now concedes, unacceptable." >> >> >>href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/dis >c >>ussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html">http://www.was >h >>ingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/DI >2 >>007031300985.html >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Did his DOJ chief of staff admit using the patriot >>act >>>>change for political purposes, not the national >>>>security rationale the treasonous bastards gave when >>>>they snuck it into the legislation. >>>> >>>>BTW, the link below is a NEWS story not distortions >>>>from Opinion Journal. >>>> >>>> >>>>href="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/new >s >>/ >>>n >>>>ation/16897325.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_n >a >>t >>>i >>>>on">http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/ >n >>a >>>t >>>>ion/16897325.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nat >i >>o >>>n >>>> >>>> >>>>Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings >of >>>>U.S. attorneys >>>>McClatchy Newspapers >>>> >>>>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. >>>> >>>> >>>>"In some instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton >may >>>>have been pleased with the work of the U.S. >>attorneys, >>>>who, after all, they had appointed," Kyle Sampson, >>>>former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto >>>>Gonzales, speculated in a 2006 memo outlining Bush's >>>>alternative approach. "In other instances, >Presidents >>>>Reagan and Clinton may simply have been unwilling to >>>>commit the resources necessary to remove the U.S. >>>>attorneys." >>>> >>>> >>>>Nonetheless, 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/featu >r >>e >>>. >>>>h >>>>>tml?id=110009784">http://www.opinionjournal.com/edi >t >>o >>>r >>>>i >>>>>al/feature.html?id=110009784 >>>>> >>>>>The Hubbell Standard >>>>>Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. >>>>>Attorneys. >>>>> >>>>>Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT >>>>> >>>>>Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the >>news >>>>>this week that the Administration's decision to >fire >>>>>eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the >>White >>>>>House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun >>>>>yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the >>>>>politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, >my. >>>>> >>>>>As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to >>>>>walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. >>attorneys >>>>>because she has direct personal experience. In any >>>>>Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she >>>>>call herself as the first witness--and bring along >>>>>Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel. >>>>> >>>>>As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. >>>>>Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the >>>>>Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail >>>>>for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill >and >>>>>Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney >>>General >>>>>in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his >>>nominal >>>>>superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. >Attorneys >>>>>in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them >>10 >>>>>days to move out of their offices. >>>>> >>>>>At the time, President Clinton presented the move >as >>>>>something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are >>>>>routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have >>>>>not done anything differently." In fact, the >>>>>dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, >>>>>including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both >>>>>retained holdovers from the previous Administration >>>>>and only replaced them gradually as their tenures >>>>>expired. This allowed continuity of leadership >>within >>>>>the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition. >>>>> >>>>>Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in >>>the >>>>>firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. >>>Attorney >>>>>in the District of Columbia, was investigating then >>>>>Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was >>>>>"within 30 days" of making a decision on an >>>>>indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding >>the >>>>>Clinton's economic program through Congress, >>>>>eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and >>was >>>>>later pardoned by Mr. Clinton. >>>>> >>>>>Also at the time, allegations concerning some of >the >>>>>Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a >head. >>>>>By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the >>>>>Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint >>>>>"Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney >>for >>>>>Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big >>>>>Whitewater indictments, and she rejected >information >>>>>from another FOB, David Hale, on the business >>>>>practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. >>>Clinton. >>>>>When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, >>>the >>>>>Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to >the >>>>>Clintons. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>And it may be this very amateurism that explains >how >>>>>the current Administration has managed to turn this >>>>>routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees >>>>>into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong >>with >>>>>replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at >>>>>the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve >>>>>supervision like any other executive branch >>>>appointees. >>>>>The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had >>>>>been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys >had >>>>>been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud >>cases >>>>>and that the President had made the point to >>Attorney >>>>>General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at >the >>>>>heart of democratic institutions, and it was >>entirely >>>>>appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to >>insist >>>>>that his appointees act energetically against it. >>>>> >>>>>Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from >Washington >>>>>state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in >>>>>favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes >on >>>a >>>>>third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer >and >>>>>other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" >>>>>were deceased, others were registered in >>>>>storage-rental facilities, and still others were >>>>>convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were >>>>>"discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this >>>>>constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But >>>it >>>>>should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a >>>>>Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to >>>do, >>>>>apparently on grounds that he had better things to >>>>do. >>>>> >>>>>In New Mexico, another state in which recent >>>elections >>>>>have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. >>>Attorney >>>>>David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task >>force >>>>>in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before >>closing >>>>>its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by >the >>>>>likes of the Association of Community Organizations >>>>>for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported >>>at >>>>>the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused >to >>>>>answer questions in court about whether his group >>had >>>>>illegally made copies of voter registration cards >in >>>>>the run-up to the 2004 election. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least >>>one >>>>>of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences >>with >>>>>the Administration about the death penalty, another >>>to >>>>>questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. >>Not >>>>>surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting >>>>>their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some >>>>>cases they were. It would not be the first time in >>>>>history that a dismissed employee did not take >>kindly >>>>>to his firing, nor would it be the first in which >an >>>>>employer sacked the wrong person. >>>>>No question, the Justice Department and White House >>>>>have botched the handling of this issue from start >>to >>>>>finish. But what we don't have here is any serious >>>>>evidence that the Administration has acted >>improperly >>>>>or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats >want >>>>>to understand what a real abuse of power looks >like, >>>>>they can always ask the junior Senator from New >>>York. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The actual letter from the Cheif of staff may be >>>>>>viewed at this address >>>>>> >>>>>>href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/sampson- >r >>o >>>v >>>>e >>>>>- >>>>>>attorney">http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/samp >s >>o >>>n >>>>- >>>>>r >>>>>>ove-attorney >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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”: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta >>>previously >>>>>>told ThinkProgress that Rove’s claims that the >>>>Clinton >>>>>>administration also purged attorneys is “pure >>>>>>fiction.” He added, “Replacing most U.S. attorneys >>>>>>when a new administration comes in — as we did in >>>>1993 >>>>>>and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not >>>>>>unusual. But the Clinton administration never >fired >>>>>>federal prosecutors as pure political >retribution.” >>>>>> >>>>>>(The Gavel has more.) >>>>>> >>>>>>Filed under: Ethics, Administration [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| Re: You're quoting an editorial, moron. Mine's from a former Attorney General. Get a clue. | Oropan | 15:13:16 03/15/07 Thu |
|
||