So, everybody on TV and in congress wants AG Gonzales’ head because 8 US Attorneys were fired. Big deal. Tell me when in the last two administrations the AG was not embroiled in controversy.
But tell me why you don’t see this in the news these last couple of days:
Last Tuesday, after being on the job only 11 days, Attorney General Janet Reno had the Justice Department moving and shaking. She requested the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country “to build a team” that represents “my views” and those of the President. Although expected eventually, the move triggered alarms at the Washington prosecutorial office, which has been probing the finances of a key Democratic floor captain, House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski. Reno insists there was “no linkage”‘ between the dismissals and the probe, which insiders say will continue.
That quote was from the April 5, 1993, issue of Time Magazine.
Again, the country’s focus should be on The Long War and Iraq. This is just a distraction (one of many).
The Democrats know this, the MSM knows this, even the Administration knows this. The Dems are simply beating the grass and hoping that a snake comes out. The travesty of this “scandal” is that Gonzales, fell for the trap and spoke, saying that “mistakes were made” was the dumbest thing he could ever have done, it’s another example of the Admin allowing the opposition party to define the terms of the fight. I had hoped for better from the Admin but I was disappointed once again.
Gee, and NPR this morning mentioned that Clinton fired 1 (one) US Attorney. Always good to keep abreast of what lies the MSM is spreading.
The difference is – Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term. Those replacements were subject to Senate confirmation. When NPR was talking about Clinton firing one, that was in the middle of the US Attorney’s term and the replacement was ratified by the Senate. These US Attorneys were fired AFTER a staffer for Arlen Spector inserted a provision in the re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act (that Spector didn’t know about, BTW) that provided for replacement of US Attorneys mid-term WITHOUT Senate confirmation. So then, using this new PATRIOT Act, the administration fired US Attorneys who wouldn’t play ball and indict Democrats before the election (as the US Attorney from New Mexico testified to Congress) or were investigating Republicans too hard (on May 11th, the same day that Carol Lam opened an investigation into corruption charges against Congressman Jerry Lewis, a high level figure in Justice sent an e-mail to the Attorney General COS saying that they needed to discuss a serious problem with Carol Lam over the phone). Not only that, but the Attorney General testified in front of Congress on 18 Jan saying that he would never replace a US Attorney for political reasons, yet an e-mail in December to White House Council Harriet Miers said:
BTW, by definition, if they got WH political (Karl Rove) to sign off on it, then it definitely WAS political, meaning that at a minimum the Attorney General perjured himself (again) in front of Congress.
Facts boys, stick to them.
And what were President Clinton’s reasons for the firings? Were they any less politically motivated? Are these not political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President?
No one is saying that they don’t serve at the pleasure of the President. And of course Clinton fired all of them because they were leftovers from the previous Republican administration. The core of the case revolves around several things – 1)That these firings took place after a sneaky move by a staffer at the request of the Justice Department, 2) that Gonzales has obviously perjured himself in front of the Judiciary Comittee with regard to the nature of the firings and, 3) none of the firings were terrorism related, yet they used the PATRIOT Act as the authority to do it. This looks like a blatent attempt to make those replacements without the advice and consent of the Senate. It looks bad, it smells bad, it probably IS bad. Not only that, but a US Attorney (a Bush appointee and the model for Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men, BTW) testified in front of the Judicial Committee that he felt “threatened” by phone calls from Senator Domenici because he didn’t find the dirt on New Mexico Democrats that he was supposed to find regarding voter fraud and refused to indict before the election. As for the measure inserted into the Patriot Act that allowed this circumvention of the Senate? Arlen Spector supports changing the law back to the way it was:
In essence, this law would allow the President to nominate strawmen, get them confirmed and then fire and replace them in contravention Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. That is why this is a big deal.
Facts boys, stick to them.
Uh huh.
These US Attorneys were fired AFTER a staffer for Arlen Spector inserted a provision in the re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act (that Spector didn’t know about, BTW) that provided for replacement of US Attorneys mid-term WITHOUT Senate confirmation. So then, using this new PATRIOT Act, the administration fired US Attorneys who wouldn’t play ball and indict Democrats before the election (as the US Attorney from New Mexico testified to Congress) or were investigating Republicans too hard
You seem to have facts confused with insinuations. Fact is that the President has the authority to do what he did. Fact is that Congress approved confirmation of PATRIOT. Fact is that the Dems’ response is entirely consistent with the paranoid ravings we’ve heard since the President was first campaigning.
Ah Scooby…you poor thing.
To see what is in front of your nose is a constant struggle.
- George Orwell.
If you can’t connect the dots, I’m not going to do it for you…
Scooby – Nobody is saying that the President didn’t have the authority to do what he did. Nobody is saying that Congress didn’t re-authorize the Patriot Act. So now that we got those two strawmen out of the way, let’s knock down a third straw man -
Republican Senator John Ensign
Republican Senator John Sununu on Fox News:
Yeah, John Ensign and John Sununu are paranoid, raving Democrats.
And finally, even Arlen Specter, ranking Republican on the Judicial committee wants to redo the Patriot Act to take the provision out. Like Orwell said…
hey ctil, did you blogroll us on your Kos page as “wingnut extreme?”
Cause that’s freakin’ hilarious man.
What’s the standard for wingnut’itude over there anyway? The bar seems kinda low.
Bush fired every attorney general when he took office. That is normal. To fire 8 attorney generals in the middle of an administration, Republicans that had been appointed 5 years ago, and lie about who was doing the firings and why is a coverup.
This was political. All of those fired were doing something, or not doing something, that local GOP officials objected to. The problem is that Justice attorneys are not supposed to be blatently political. Something about the rule of law you know.
I admit that I’m ignorant about this stuff….maybe I’ll ask Army Lawyer or Eagle1.
But, that said, my understanding of US attorney position was that it’s a political position, and that “the eight” were politically removed.
That seems normal enough to me, the only argument that I’m really getting to the contrary is that “well this has never been done before.”
Okay fine. But what was the illegal act here?