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.

No actually JD, Eric Mink got it wrong again. The only double standards he doesn’t like is when they are on his side. He is flagrant in not writing about some “doublestandards.” Where was his outrage about Sandy Berger?
I can assure you had Condi Rice stolen documents out of the National Archives and destroyed them prior to her 9-11 testimony, Mink would have written a Commentary about his outrage.

Where was Mink’s outrage when the NYTImes outed the name of the CIA agent that put away the first World Trade Center bomber? He was outraged about his pal Valeria Plame but not so much about this poor agent who has had to go into hiding with his family.

I find Mr. Mink to be an outrage as a professional objective journalist.

Bob:

“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.”

If you have any information of staff members being hired in other administrations with less than stellar qualifications in the previous 130 years since civil service became law, you are being strangely silent about it.

More than 50 years ago, I applied for a civil service position in the City of St. Louis. The rule at the time was the written exam counted for 40 percent of the total score and the oral interview counted for 60 percent. Tell me, if I had scored 100 percent on the written test, with rules like that, did any Republican have a snowball’s chance in Hell of being hired in the Raymond Tucker Mayoral administration?

ICON

I am not going to defend the practices in St. Louis Civil Service. However, I do find it interesting that you wish to compare St. Louis to the Federal government.

I am not going to even defend hiring practices in say the DOD or Human Service for the Federal Government.

However, the AG office has always been seen as a special concern. Other offices can deny you services. The AG could send one to jail. So everyone on both sides of the aisle have tried to keep it more independent, until this administration. I also admitted you would not completely eliminate the political practices simply because they are appointed offices. So during an Obama administration if a Republican and a Democrat are close in their evaluation I would expect the Democrat to get the job, the as a Republican would in a MCCain administration. However, we are not talking about the people being bypassed even being nearly the same as the one selected. The bypassed person was superior.

Once again the study I quoted was internal, so it was handled by the AG office and found many problems with what had gone on for 6 years.

So stop being so Republican and saying that has long has we violate the rules it is good, it is only bad when they violate the rule.

A CENTRIST

I was just trying to say he got something right for a change. Ha Sandy Berger should be in a federal pen with at least 20 years to go, without good behavior.

We all know the double standard is alive and well. Let a republican tap his foot in a bathroom stall, it is a front page story, while a democrat cheating on his cancer stricken wife and fathering a child, doesn’t even get noticed.

I note with interest that most of the conservative commenters here are saying nothing about the charge that is being made: that the White House attempted to influence the work of the US Attorneys by demanding prosecution of certain political figures and by demanding protection of others also based on political questions. (And then by firing certain attorneys who refused to play)

If that kind of thing is wrong when a Democrat is in the white house, then it’s wrong when there is a Republican is in the white house. Whether it’s been going on since time immemorial is beside the point. It’s either right or it’s wrong.

hs:

“I note with interest that most of the conservative commenters here are saying nothing about the charge that is being made: that the White House attempted to influence the work of the US Attorneys by demanding prosecution of certain political figures and by demanding protection of others also based on political questions. (And then by firing certain attorneys who refused to play)”

My Conservative comments may quell your interest on the silence of charges of influence on US Attorneys. Is it far better to terminate all 93 US Attorneys because they were appointed by Republicans, making their politics suspect, than to take action on those few holdovers and mavericks whose decisions to pursue or drop charges against Democrats were beyond suspicion?

Talk about a double standard!

Bob:

“However, the AG office has always been seen as a special concern. Other offices can deny you services. The AG could send one to jail. So everyone on both sides of the aisle have tried to keep it more independent, until this administration.”

Tangled in your underwear again, Bob. The AG can send nobody to jail, Constitutional and legal procedures must be followed and I challenge you to find even one US Attorney General that had unanimous confirmation by “everyone on both sides of the aisle,” assuring complete independence. By your warped standards, AG Janet Reno enjoyed the confidence of both sides when she ordered the roasting of more than 80 men, women and children in the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco because some had guns. Had they been genocidal foreign terrorists with the blood of thousands on their hands, your party would have been pleading for love and understanding instead of a fatal firestorm.

Safe–

The difference is you have defamed employees who did NOTHING wrong by claiming they were bad performers.

BTW “read my lips” is YOUR issue not mine

If they had said, ” we fired ‘em because they weren’t Republican enough” I’d be satisfied. Instead they went out of their way to say they were bad attornies…

See the difference ?

ICON

You say that the AG office cannot send you to jail. I do understand following constitutional procedures. I also understand that the government has more resources than most individuals. If the AG office decides to throw 100 lawyers at prosecuting someone, I doubt if that individual can counter with the same legal power.

As to the difference between the AG office and say the Energy department. When was the last time the Energy Department sent someone to prison. They can request the AG to prosecute but they cannot prosecute on their own in criminal matters.

Learn how the legal system works.

Thank you, JD, hypocrisy reigns supreme on both sides!

I would imagine that they were fired because they were found to be closet liberals.

JD:

Eric Mink may not have called Clinton out when he did wrong but I certainly did. If any President abuses power it bothers me. Despite being moderate I’m libertarian in my view of use of power.

Matt W.

What you accused me of, a week or so ago, tells me you are not libertarian, in any way shape or form, but a far left hater, of what this country was founded on.

I totally agree, that abuse of power, by the fed, state or local government, should not be tolerated. I do not call firing attorneys, that serve at the Presidents pleasure, abuse of power, at day one of his term or the last day of his term.