Sometimes an dog just doesn’t want to let go of an old bone. Since there isn’t much else going on and we’ve dug this one up again, chew on this, from the Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2007;

“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.”

Man, you yappers just don’t get it!

1. Clinton doesn’t matter.

2. Bush fired these 8 folks for political reasons, as admitted by the woman who did the political firings.

3. The new AG says; “no charges,” but, was violation of civil service laws to use politics in hiring/firing.

QED

Yappers lose because they, like John McCain, are ignorant!

http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/08/04/15-reasons-john-mccain-is-too-ignorant-to-be-president/

So two wrongs make a right?

Clinton fired ALL the Republican Attys. (cleaned house) and that was O.K.?
Bush fires only 8 and that is not O.K.? This seems beyond petty, are there not more important issues to wine about?

A. patriot

It is accepted that at the beginning of a Presidential term that the President gets to appoint new US attorney’s. If you go back and take a look Nixon did the same when he became President and so did Reagan, I am unsure if Bush 41 did so since it was a Republican replacing a Republican. This why Clinton fired all the attorney’s and why Reagan did so etc. So do not mix apples and oranges.

However, there is a problem with the 8 since it at least appears they were fired because they did not press issues concerning Democrats.

No matter what we wish to think there will be some politics in the AG office. However, an internal study completed last year said that the last 6 years was by far the most political hiring practices in the Ag office when it came to hiring staff members. They sighted many instances when better qualified candidates were bypassed. Generally they pointed to better qualified Democrats being bypassed in favor of Republicans. However, some Republicans were bypassed if they were not thought to be Conservative enough. We are not talking about US Attorney’s or the Assistant US attorney, we are talking about staffers who remain through each administration.

The study did give credit to the current AG for putting an end to the practice.

Tim Hogan:

“3. The new AG says; “no charges,” but, was violation of civil service laws to use politics in hiring/firing.”

Don’t you feel stupid when you write things like this?
Your irrational Bush apoplexy once again appears to have chronically restricted the flow of oxygen to your brain. Presidential appointees are not subject to the protections of civil service laws, they serve at the pleasure of the President. But … if they had taken civil service tests and finished high enough to have been selected for the position and had followed all the rules required of that position, it would have been a violation of civil service laws to use politics in firing them.

Eric Mink finally got one right. Nothing like double standards.

And why, then, would the president’s politicos explain that they were fired for ” performance” issues, instead of ” at the president’s pleasure” ?

HKCHAS:

“And why, then, would the president’s politicos explain that they were fired for ” performance” issues, instead of ” at the president’s pleasure”?”

What possible difference could it make who said what about a legitimate termination of services? They’re gone and will stay gone. This is like whacked out loopies still complaining about G.H.W. Bush’s 1988 reneging on “Read my lips, no new taxes” when any new taxes would have every one of them shivering in incontinent delight.

Star20

Nice connection of facts that are not related. Where you point out that all 93 US Attorney’s were fired when one was investigating the Ways and Means Chairman.

At the beginning of each new Presidency it is common practice to replace all the US Attorney’s. Bill Clinton did so as stated, but so did every President for the past 50 years with the exception of when the new President is of the same Party as the previous President or the President is starting a new term. It is customary until lately for the US Attorney’s to submit their resignations and the President then has the right to accept or deny the resignation. When they do not submit the resignation then the President fires them.

No body complains that Bush (43) did this in 2000, it was custom to do so. The problem comes when 8 are fired, for what appears to be political reasons. There will never be politics completely removed from the AG office because the top spots are political appointments. However, attempts are made to isolate the AG office as much as possible because it is suppose to be impartial in handing out indictments.

However, there are indications that the 8 US Attorney’s were fired for not pressing issues against Democrats during an election cycle. Most if not all of the 8 believe this and they are Republicans.

An internal investigation in the AG office indicated that during the previous 6 years political beliefs were more important than competency during hiring of staff members, these are people who are covered under Civil Service Law and will continue to be there through all administrations. The study found party affiliation was more important than class standing and other criteria usually used in evaluating the candidate. However, even moderate Republicans were passed over for more conservative Republicans, though the moderate was thought to be better qualified.

So do not compare what is custom at the beginning of a Presidency to what went on during an election cycle. You are trying to match apples and oranges.