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: Quit trying to change the subject | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 17:07:08 03/15/07 Thu In reply to: Mo' Green 's message, "Is that the Wall Street Journal editiorial board that called for the pardon of the felon Scooter Libby???" on 15:27:57 03/15/07 Thu I was the first to post the story on Reagan and Carter. I linked the story. You have come up with NO PROOF to prove my story false. You have that burden to prove your claim. >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=krwashingto >n >>_ >>>n >>>>a >>>>>t >>>>>>i >>>>>>>on">http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/ne >w >>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/fe >a >>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/samps >o >>n >>>- >>>>r >>>>>o >>>>>>v >>>>>>>e >>>>>>>>- >>>>>>>>>attorney">http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/s >a >>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 ] |