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: Re: You're quoting an editorial, moron. Mine's from a former Attorney General. Get a clue. | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:13:16 03/15/07 Thu In reply to: Mo' Green 's message, "You're quoting an editorial, moron. Mine's from a former Attorney General. Get a clue." on 14:59:23 03/15/07 Thu 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/di >s >>c >>>ussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html">http://www.wa >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/ne >w >>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_na >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/feat >u >>r >>>e >>>>. >>>>>h >>>>>>tml?id=110009784">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ed >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/sampson >- >>r >>>o >>>>v >>>>>e >>>>>>- >>>>>>>attorney">http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/sam >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 |
| Is that the Wall Street Journal editiorial board that called for the pardon of the felon Scooter Libby??? | Mo' Green | 15:27:57 03/15/07 Thu |
|
||