Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, for the first time called for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
“The buck should stop somewhere,” Clinton told ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper, “and the attorney general — who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president’s personal attorney with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country — should resign.
Clinton said the evidence so far pointed to “direct interference with the way U.S. attorneys are supposed to operate — to be impartial. There’s evidence of political interference and political pressure being put on them to engage in partisan political activities.” Clinton added there were “so many examples of an abuse of power, of going in and removing people not on the basis of performance but, in fact, because they were performing well, they were fulfilling their responsibilities as a U.S. attorney, and that wasn’t within the political agenda of the administration.”
When Clinton’s husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney.
The Clinton’s have no room to talk. Her hubby’s pick of Herman Munster, I mean Janet Reno, was the worst in history.
Clinton didn’t remove them when he took office. Rove saying it doesn’t make it true…source and documents here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/sampson-rove-attorney/
That’s not much of a “refutation” there, Chris. The Clintons dismissed all 93 federal attorneys as opposed to 8 (which the article does not refute), and the best that the Democrat shill Podesta can do is play word games with the word “purge”.
#3 “The Clintons dismissed all 93 federal attorneys as opposed to 8 (which the article does not refute)”
Bush has only removed 8 federal attorneys in the entire time since he took office? He didn’t appoint all new ones when he first took office?
Thanks for setting the record straight. The libs have egg all over their face, don’t they?
4. “The libs have egg all over their face, don’t they?”
Apparently so.
The apparent lack of reading comprehension here is, honestly, breathtaking.
Read that post again that Chris links to.
Repeat after me: Clinton and Bush BOTH reappointed every U.S. attorney when they came into office.
Here’s the summary:
Clinton & Bush: Reappoint all U.S. DAs when they came into office. Check.
Bush: Replace 8 DAs midterm. Check.
Clinton: Not so much.
Got it? Clear now?
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002746.php
[edited: comments guide}
Um, we had this discussion on another forum. Bush also removed all federal attorneys when he took office in 2000 as well. One of those attorneys was Janet Napolitano of Arizona, who after being let go, ran for Governor and won.
This is about removing 8 REPUBLICAN attorneys who refused to play ball and dig up dirt on political opponents. Hence the controvery.
arianeb,
“Um, we had this discussion on another forum. ”
It’s like wack-a-mole around here and elsewhere.
5 – “#4. “The libs have egg all over their face, don’t they?” Apparently so.
Comment by SN — 3/13/2007 @ 5:14 pm
Doesn’t look like egg on the face of the Bush critics to me. The case they make looks solid, it doesn’t look like business as usual, and Bill Clinton didn’t do the same thing. Why it was left to Hillary Clinton to poke a stick at Gonzalez beats me; she’s the last one who should have done it if they really wanted to damage the Bushies. But business as normal? Doesn’t look like it to me.
But you’re the lawyer, SN. Comment?
The lack of reading comprehension is among those who can’t seem to figure out that the number 93 is more than 11 times as large as the number 8.
9. “Doesn’t look like it to me.”
Read the quote from Hillary. She said it was perfectly acceptable for her husband to fire the AGs solely because he was a new president.
I personally think it makes more sense to look at the individual records of the AGs and fire those who you feel would not be appropriate. That makes more sense than just blindly firing them all.
That being said I think both Clinton and Bush had every right to fire any AG for any legal reason. It just would have been nice if Clinton had come up with a reason, any reason, before he fired them.
He is the Boss they are his employees , he decided he no longer wanted them in his employee
Big frikin deal people get fired every day get over it
Its just people trying to make a new scandal where there isn’t one
12. “He is the Boss they are his employees , he decided he no longer wanted them in his employee”
I agree. Hillary said that U.S. attorneys are supposed to be “impartial.” That’s absolute BS. They’re supposed to do whatever the US AG tells them to do. Apparently, they were not, so they were fired.
Hey, I dislike W and Gonzales as much as anyone, but firing these AGs is well within their rights. Certainly, if Bill could fire them all, Gonzales can fire some of them.
As I said in the other thread, Andrew C. McCarthy has an interesting article about the firings:
The Pot Calling the Kettle “Interim”
Democrats with short memories rail about Bush’s removal of U.S. attorneys.
http://tinyurl.com/2sxlra
Indeed, a moment’s reflection on the terms served by U.S. attorneys reveals the emptiness of Feinstein’s argument. These officials are appointed for four years, with the understanding that they serve at the pleasure of the president, who can remove them for any reason or no reason. George W. Bush, of course, has been president for six years. That means every presently serving U.S. attorney in this country has been appointed or reappointed by this president.
That is, contrary to Clinton, who unceremoniously cashiered virtually all Reagan and Bush 41 appointees, the current President Bush can only, at this point, be firing his own appointees. Several of them, perhaps even all of them, are no doubt highly competent. But it is a lot less unsavory, at least at first blush, for a president to be rethinking his own choices than to be muscling out another administration’s choices in an act of unvarnished partisanship.
Well worth the read. And don’t assume that the fired Attny were necessarily Republicans.
#13, WRONG.
Prosecutors are not to serve at the whim of their bosses. They are to serve to their oath of office. The position of prosecutor is one so powerful it can not be the tool of a political power in any democracy. To allow political powers to direct prosecutions is wrong and abhorrent to all Americans.
***
The mass replacement of US Attorneys is standard and has happened with every change in administration. Every political appointee leaves when the administration changes, including the Cabinet and White House. Only career positions remain.
In this case, regardless of the Limbaugh cover story, is they are being fired for political reasons.
#1 – I worked on both Clinton campaigns, have always voted Democrat, and have never denied my liberalism (although I deny what many conservatives here think liberalism is) and I would agree with you that Reno was a terrible choice and a miserable failure.
Her only saving grace is that she wasn’t Meece or Ashcroft.
#15, If you are concerned with the executive abusing his powers through political prosecutions, there are still two other branches of government designed to keep him in check; and if that fails, we still have the guarantee of a jury system to serve as the final check against an abusive government. But, since the President is the executive, and he is charged with ensuring the laws are faithfully executed, and the US Attorneys are appointed by and work for him, I really fail to see where why they must necessarily operate independent of the policies of his administration.
Now, if you disagree with those policies, we still have elections every four years… and in extreme cases there is always the power of impeachment vested with the Congress.
Holy crap. This truly is wack-a-mole with Ze/ZeOverMind and Frank IBC who represent the metaphorical, perhaps literal, brick walls. Ze has repeatedly offered that NRO article, which was written Jan 17 and a heck of a long time ago given all the disclosures, that was debunked as soon as it was published.
AGAIN: Clinton and Bush BOTH dismissed and reappointed every U.S. attorney. Midterm dismissals for POLITICAL REASONS (read the recently released emails) is unprecedented.
And for Frank IBC: Bush and Clinton, approximately 93 AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR ADMINISTRATIONS. Bush fired another 8 fired because they weren’t doing Republican bidding.
Since you’re a fan of math: 101>93.
How do I know this? READ THE EMAILS THEY JUST RELEASED.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002743.php
Harriet Meier, Bush, and Gonzalez’ chief of staff discussed this very issue. Were these DAs aggressively going after Democrats? After Republicans? Get rid of the ones going after Republicans.
They even made a CHART of the attorneys who weren’t “loyal” to Republicans. Literally, the word “loyal” was the bar they had to meet.
Then, Gonazlez lied before Congress about all of this. THEN Gonalez admitted today that there were issues and that there were problems, but he didn’t know about it. Right.
Wack-a-mole with you guys.
“I agree. Hillary said that U.S. attorneys are supposed to be “impartial.” That’s absolute BS. They’re supposed to do whatever the US AG tells them to do. Apparently, they were not, so they were fired.”
Read this again: “To allow political powers to direct prosecutions is wrong and abhorrent to all Americans.”
SN, are you an American? You seem like a reasonably well-spoken person, and I take it for granted that you live in the United States (well-spokenness is not necessarily an American trait, of course). But from your attitude and “they all suck, so what?” attitude, you sound like you live in a banana republic and love it.
SN….
All presidents pretty much replace all USA’s when they first take office, and replace them with mostly USA’s who are from their own party. Reagan did, Bush 1 did, Clinton did, Bush 2 did. So what? No story there. But only Bush 2 replaced 8 USA’s mid-term (and let’s not forget they were all from his own party).
So that’s an odd thing. Not a scandal, but certainly odd. So what makes this rise to the level of scandal? The fact that the reason all 8 were let go kept changing? No, that’s not enough to make it a scandal, but it does start to make most reasonable people wonder…..
The fact that several were fired after refusing to do speed up and release indictments in several investigations into members of the opposing party in the weeks before elections in hotly contested districts? Well, the USA’s do serve at the president’s prerogative. But they don’t “serve” the president. They serve the people. This starts to get into scandal territory.
Hmmm….. Could it be that Gonzales and several other DOJ officials went before congress and testified under oath, that the USA firings had nothing to do with politics and/or they didn’t know why they were fired, when in fact they not only knew the reasons why, but communicated those reasons via emails (that were released today). And that the reasons turned out to be exactly political in nature?
Um, lying to congress. Is that a good reason to resign? Or be impeached?
If you step back and do a little bit of reading (and thinking) for yourself, you might actually find out the facts before you start throwing eggs at people. Cause some eggs have a magical way of coming back and smacking the thrower right in the face.
“He is the Boss they are his employees , he decided he no longer wanted them in his employee”
Wasn’t it Bill Clinton who ended up in his employee?
This guy needs to go, he is the last leg in the administration besides Bush and Cheney, that doesn’t care about the truth or acknowledge it in any manor. Like good Donald “Gee Golly Oh Lordy” Rumsfeld. This guy needs to resign, hopefully it doesn’t take a league of judges, 50 mistakes, like it took for rummy to have to leave office.
#19, Hei
But they don’t “serve” the president. They serve the people.
Thank you. I meant that but didn’t say it.
Could you guys explain to me why the media made it front page news when Clinton fired all of his attorneys, if this is just routine behavior? It’s not like it was a cabinet appointment or an inauguration… There must have been something newsworthy about it…
For all you guys who think that Bush shouldn’t be able to sack the US Attorneys the Wall Street Journal has an interesting editorial:
The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784
The thing about these firings is that when compared to the Clintons the current Administration looks rather reasonable.
The only newsworthy angle of this story is that the media smells blood and is basically focusing on anything to hype up the Dem’s chances for 2008. I’d like to see HRC win the DNC nomination for 2008. I think she’d be the best candidate for any Republican to run against.
#18 – So you don’t like what Bush is doing. There is NOTHING here that even amounts to a “Scandal” If USA’s don’t toe the administration line AND they suck at their jobs, then they are asked to move on.
[edited: comments guide]
One thing is, that many of the hysterical lefties scream that all these guys are Republican appointees. Well that is correct… They were appointed by a Republican. That doesn’t however make the appointee a Republican. There is a difference. And Bush is totally within his political purview to replace the guys that aren’t doing the jobs he wants done. Is that so hard to understand?
I think you’re missing the point Mr. Dvorak. It’s typical for a President when entering office to start with a clean slate of US Attorneys. This is meant to make sure that the administration starts off with people who they believe will do a good job. Most of the time, a large majority of the US Attorneys are hired back immediately.
G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush both did this, I believe Reagan did as well. The difference is that only G.W. Bush (or rather his A.G.) is actively firing attorneys based upon whether or not they actively went after Democrats during an election season.
Also, thanks to an addition to the Patriot Act in 2005, only A.G. Gonzales has been able to appoint replacements based upon purely political reasons. All previous replacements needed to be confirmed by the Senate.
I didn’t say this yet wish that I had –
‘ The current situation is unusual in two ways, at least. First, it’s unusual to replace attorneys that the Administration itself appointed. Second, it’s grossly improper to do so as a form of interference with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. We wouldn’t have an independent judiciary, or one in which we had any confidence, if people believe that prosecutions are undertaken for political reasons rather than on the merits.’
Anyone care to go back to the Democrat liberal talking points, and explain why Janet Reno had to call for resignations, if its unprecedented to replace attorneys in mid-term? My understanding is that there are 4 year terms, some are kept, and others are not. Clinton’s firing may have been cover for putting a favorable person in Little Rock, so nothing comes back at him. If only he knew how much Hillary were involved in Whitewater, he would never have been impeached.
At least the media is trying to move back to real stories. The Anna Nicole 24/7 coverage got old fast.
This guy needs to go, he is one of the last Neo Cons with great power not mentioning dick cheney or president bush, who don’t care what happens no matter what, like Rummy, we need to get him gone like right now.