Hillary Clinton on US Attorney Firings

[Pastor Larry]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]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.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]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.[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784
[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Times]
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[carpro]

I wonder what Hillary said to Bill when he fired almost every justice dept. attorney in existence when he took office.

 

[777]

So now she's "deeply disturbed" by this and is screaming for Alberto Gonzales' head?

When Clinton's husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney. Clinton was asked how this was different from the termination of eight U.S. attorneys last December.

"There is a great difference," Clinton said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It's not done on a case-by-case basis where you didn't do what some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh' and every president has done that."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=2948538
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070313/D8NRBNV80.html

Fire 'em all or none, that's her rule and that's not her call. The VRWC's back and she's gonna be sorry.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

I wonder what Hillary said to Bill when he fired almost every justice dept. attorney in existence when he took office.

Do you have any proof?

 

[Jeff Weaver]

Do you have any proof?

No proof but some insight for you. I worked in Washington, DC for the Federal government for many years, as a career civil servant, until I became disabled.

U.S. Attorneys and their deputies, and a host of other attorneys at the justice department were and are political appointees under Schedule C of the Civil Service Act. These appointees serve at the pleasure of the president, and it is typical that when the occupant of the WHite House changes, all Schedule C employees are asked to resign, so that the new occupant may appoint his selections. It has been this way since the days of Andrew Jackson, and is nothing new, and the "firings" when Mr. Clinton took over from the elder Mr. Bush as not as nefarious as some would make it seem.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I believe that the contention is not that these attorneys were fired, it was when and why that has generated this situation.

The apparent reason these attorneys were fired was because they did not do enough for Bush (Rove) to investigate and harass Democrats.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Firing attorneys at the change of administration is political. There's nothing wrong with that. That is the right of the president.

Apparently, these current firings were with cause in some cases, such as refusing to pursue the administration's priorities in a death penalty case and voter fraud case, as well as others. The president, as the chief law enforcement officer, gets to decide what his priorities are. If someone who works for him is not willing to carry out the president's priorities in law enforcement, then they should no longer have a job. If someoen doesn't like the president's law enforcement priorities, then they should elect a new president.

So far as I can tell, nothing was done illegally here. The "why" they were fired is apparently because they did not want to act on the president's priorities.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

I agree with Pastor Larry.

This is the same as with any corporation.

If the CEO wants to move the company in a certain direction, or implement new policies, or favor other policies, he expects his subordinates to carry out those policies to his liking. If he doesn't believe they are doing the job correctly, or to his specifications, he has the right to fire them.

Provided that the President didn't want his underlings to do anything illegal, he has every right to demand they do things a certain way.

If we, as the people, do not like it, then we should either vote for another President or else change the situation so the President no longer has the authority to arbitrarily fire a U.S. attorney.

I would think this would be a bi-partisan issue since, apparently, nothing illegal was done and he has the legal authority to fire those who work under him, for whatever reason.

I don't see a difference in whether he fires them at the beginning of his administration or in the middle. If he enters office and doesn't like the U.S. attorney's, then fire them. If he is in the middle of his administration and doesn't like the way certain U.S. attorney's have been performing, then fire them.

This is a non-issue being made into something for political gain by Democrats. But, never fear, Republicans will get their chance for revenge when the next Democratic President is elected.

 

[TomVols]

Weren't the US Attys fired upon Reno's confirmation and not upon Clinton's taking of office? Reno was not Clinton's first nominee. Just curious as to the timing.

Still, both cases seem to be just politics as usual, as has been pointed out. It's just that Bush haters are going to glom onto anything they can, just as the Clinton haters do

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Weren't the US Attys fired upon Reno's confirmation and not upon Clinton's taking of office? Reno was not Clinton's first nominee. Just curious as to the timing.

Still, both cases seem to be just politics as usual, as has been pointed out. It's just that Bush haters are going to glom onto anything they can, just as the Clinton haters do

I think that it is hilarious when the Bush Acolytes immediately point to former President Clinton and the fact that he fired them too. That boils down to this: they are making one of the following two points:
1. Bush is just as good as Clinton.
2. Bush is just as bad as Clinton.

Hmmmm.....

Regards, hope all is well - ready to watch the Vols take on the Hoos. I work with several UVA grads, and they were trash talking all afternoon on Friday!! :laugh:

We'll see.

BiR

 

[DQuixote]

Thank you, Pastor Larry. I'd like to know how long any CEO would staff his corporation with folks who were unwilling to follow his lead.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I believe that the contention is not that these attorneys were fired, it was when and why that has generated this situation.

The apparent reason these attorneys were fired was because they did not do enough for Bush (Rove) to investigate and harass Democrats.

Air America fodder.

Prosecutors Ranked on Loyalty to Bush before Firings


In a 2005 memo, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, ranked U.S. attorneys, using ratings such as "bold" and "strikeout." Sampson, who resigned this week amid increasing pressure, used the term "bold" to refer to "strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general." Attorneys ranked as "strikeout" were recommended for dismissal and described as "weak U.S. Attorneys who had been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against administration initiatives, etc.”

I would link to the article but the comments on the page by left do not allow linking from here. You can find the article on Air Americas web site. I warn you the language is vulger.

 

[TomVols]

I think that it is hilarious when the Bush Acolytes immediately point to former President Clinton and the fact that he fired them too. That boils down to this: they are making one of the following two points:
1. Bush is just as good as Clinton.
2. Bush is just as bad as Clinton.

Hmmmm.....

Regards, hope all is well - ready to watch the Vols take on the Hoos. I work with several UVA grads, and they were trash talking all afternoon on Friday!! :laugh:

We'll see.

BiR

I'm hardly a Bushie. You know better. I was just asking for a timeline-clarification.

All is indeed well. My guys need to hit their FTs, but I'll take a trip to the Sweet 16 any day!

How are your UVA friends doing today? :thumbs: