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: Nonsense & BTW did Clinton subvert terrorist legislation (patriot act) to circumvent congressional approval of replacement Attys? | |
|
Author: Mo' Green |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:28:47 03/14/07 Wed In reply to: Oropan 's message, "MORE on the subject" on 12:58:31 03/14/07 Wed 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. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16897325.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation 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/feature.h >tml?id=110009784">http://www.opinionjournal.com/editori >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-rove >- >>attorney">http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/sampson- >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: Nonsense & BTW did Clinton subvert terrorist legislation (patriot act) to circumvent congressional approval of replacement Attys? | Oropan | 07:13:25 03/15/07 Thu |
|
||