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: Is that the Wall Street Journal editiorial board that called for the pardon of the felon Scooter Libby??? | |
Author: Mo' Green |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:27:57 03/15/07 Thu In reply to: Oropan 's message, "Re: You're quoting an editorial, moron. Mine's from a former Attorney General. Get a clue." on 15:13:16 03/15/07 Thu Burdon of proof is on you. >I'll take the word of the Wall Street Journal >editorial board for getting their facts straight >before some guy who was ACTING Attorney General for >less than two months. I callenge you to prove other >wise and I want hard proof....not just some politico >saying so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > > >>>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/d >i >>s >>>c >>>>ussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html">http://www.w >a >>s >>>h >>>>ingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/ >D >>I >>>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/n >e >>w >>>s >>>>/ >>>>>n >>>>>>ation/16897325.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington >_ >>n >>>a >>>>t >>>>>i >>>>>>on">http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/new >s >>/ >>>n >>>>a >>>>>t >>>>>>ion/16897325.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_n >a >>t >>>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/fea >t >>u >>>r >>>>e >>>>>. >>>>>>h >>>>>>>tml?id=110009784">http://www.opinionjournal.com/e >d >>i >>>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/sampso >n >>- >>>r >>>>o >>>>>v >>>>>>e >>>>>>>- >>>>>>>>attorney">http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/sa >m >>p >>>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 |
Quit trying to change the subject | Oropan | 17:07:08 03/15/07 Thu |