WSJ editorial baselessly suggested Clinton replaced Arkansas U.S. attorney to avoid Whitewater investigation
In a March 14 editorial headlined "The Hubbell Standard," The Wall Street Journal suggested that former President Bill Clinton "dismiss[ed] ... all 93 U.S. Attorneys" upon taking office in 1993 and subsequently appointed " 'Friend of Bill' Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock" in order to avoid an investigation into "the Clintons' Whitewater dealings." The editorial stated, "Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments." But the Journal left out a key fact about the U.S. attorney whom Casey replaced: Charles A. Banks had himself resisted investigating the Whitewater matter, reportedly in defiance of pressure from George H.W. Bush administration officials in search of a pre-election issue with which to tar challenger Clinton. Moreover, as Media Matters for America has noted, the extensive independent counsel investigation into Whitewater -- launched several years after Clinton took office -- ultimately led the independent counsel to close the probe without charging the Clintons with any wrongdoing.
As Mollie Dickenson noted in a February 1998 Salon.com article, Banks refused to pursue the Whitewater matter, citing his belief that "no prosecutable case existed against any of the witnesses," including the Clintons. From the article:
On Oct. 8 [1992], [Attorney General William] Barr convened a joint FBI-Justice Department panel to examine the referral [naming the Clintons as witnesses in the Whitewater case]. But the panel concluded that the referral "failed to cite evidence of any federal criminal offense." The panel's comment about the referral ranged from "junky" and "half-baked" to that its allegations were "reckless, irresponsible" and "odd."
Nevertheless, Barr put a preliminary investigation into motion and ordered Banks to review it again and to report back by Oct. 16, two weeks before the Nov. 3 election.
But, in fact, Banks had already concluded, and the FBI in Little Rock had agreed, that "no action should be taken on the referral at that time." Banks had already prosecuted Jim McDougal in 1990 for alleged bank crimes, and McDougal had been acquitted. Banks said further that he believed "no prosecutable case existed against any of the witnesses," most notably the Clintons.
After Clinton appointed Casey, I. Jean Lewis -- the Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who produced the original criminal referral -- again attempted to persuade the U.S. attorney's office to investigate the Whitewater matter. But as journalist Joe Conason and political columnist Gene Lyons noted in their book, The Hunting of the President (Thomas Dunne Books, 2000), Casey cited Banks' analysis in refusing to pursue the case:
Lewis became particularly exercised after Paula Casey, citing analyses by Justice Department experts and former U.S. attorney Charles Banks, turned down her original 1992 referral for a second time. [Page 95]
Further, Robert Ray, the third and final Republican-appointed counsel assigned to investigate the Clintons, announced on September 20, 2000, that he had closed the probe after concluding that "the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct."
The Journal editorial went on to compare Clinton's actions to the Bush administration's recent controversial firings of eight U.S. attorneys, and stated, "When it comes to 'politicizing' Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons." But just as the Journal overlooked Banks' refusal to pursue an investigation of the Clintons, the editorial omitted any mention of the reported pressure on Banks by George H.W. Bush's Justice Department to do so -- just two weeks before the 1992 presidential election.
As Conason noted in his upcoming March 19 New York Observer column, Banks was a Republican appointee who had been "recently selected" by Bush "as a potential nominee for the federal bench." According to Conason, after Banks determined in early October 1992 that the Clinton referral "lacked merit" and dismissed the original request for an investigation, "officials in the Bush White House and the Justice Department heard whispers about" it, and Attorney General William Barr then "ordered" Banks "to act" on the referral and launch an investigation into the Clintons' connections to Whitewater in late October 1992, "no later than two weeks before Election Day." According to Conason, Banks replied:
I know that in investigations of this type ... the first steps, such as issuance of ... subpoenas ... will lead to media and public inquiries of matters that are subject to absolute privacy. Even media questions about such an investigation in today's modern political climate all too often publicly purport to 'legitimize what can't be proven' ....
"I must opine that after such a lapse of time, the insistence for urgency in this case appears to suggest an intentional or unintentional attempt to intervene into the political process of the upcoming presidential election ....
"For me personally to participate in an investigation that I know will or could easily lead to the above scenario ... is inappropriate. I believe it amounts to prosecutorial misconduct and violates the most basic fundamental rule of Department of Justice policy.
From the Wall Street Journal March 14 editorial, "The Hubbell Standard":
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 [sic] economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
More typical Conservative misinformation
From the WSJ. When will these people realize Clinton has been out of office for over 6 years. What a shame that they keep bringing him up.
Well, people will always bring up past presidents for relevancy. However, you are right that this is conservative misinformation.
Charles A. Banks had himself resisted investigating the Whitewater matter, reportedly in defiance of pressure from George H.W. Bush administration officials in search of a pre-election issue with which to tar challenger Clinton.
Wonder why the WSJ left that out?
Is this how Republicans think? A potential scandal is breweing. Antonio Gonzalez is apologetically ackowledging there was something wrong in the way the Attorney General's office conducted itself. His chief of staff resigns. E-mails are popping up showing White House involvement. It's too aarly to (figuratively and literally) convict anyone but the unraveling story doesn't look good for this administration. And the Wall Street Jornal feels compelled to write an editorial condemning something Bill Clinton allegedly did in 1993?
Yes, because Clinton had Reno fire 93 attorneys and gave them 10 days to get out. Bush has the same right that Slick Willie had.
"W" replaced all the US Attorneys when he took over the White House, just as Clinton did and Bush the First did and Reagan did. The story here is that he has fired 8 of them DURING HIS TERM IN OFFICE entirely for political reasons. There is a quantum difference here that most of us are capable of discerning.
Leather The executive branch has the right to let US Attorneys go at will, its part of the constitution. Since the executive branch is responsible for upholding the law they need to make sure that they can hold individuals accountable if they are not doing so. I agree that the president should have the right to let individuals go at the start of a term in mass if they want to start with a clean slate or if they want to let an individual go if they are being negligent in their duties.
What you don't seem to grasp is that it is un-ethical to have members of Congress pressure them to purse issues of a partisan nature and then fire them if they don't succumb to that pressure.Some of the individuals on that list were doing their jobs and pursuing issues of public interest from the stories I read. Remember the executive branch and their ultimate job is to do the will of the people or what is in the best interest of the people. The presidents should not be using the DOJ as a tool for a partisan end. If they did nothing wrong then why did they let people at the DOJ go? You know how unwilling this president is to admit mistakes or fire people on his staff. Don’t be so quick to jump to the “Bill Clinton” did it excuse as it does nothing for our country and makes you look foolish, uninformed, and partisan.
thank you for being so articulate on the matter. everyone should read your post.
Hey guys
Don't pick on Leatherhead. He is an idiot.
A new President usually replaces the various district U.S. Attorneys when he takes office. That's his prerogative. That's what Bill Clinton did, And that's what practically every new Preisident does. All apointments have to be approved by the Senate.
In this case, as I understand it, Bush was already in office and had already appointed U.S. Attorneys who had been confirmed by the Senate. He can replace U.S. Attorneys that he himself has appointed. Nevertheless, the Justice Department operates separately from the Executive Branch and it should be the Justice Department which controls the operations of the district U.S. Attorneys.
My appreiation of this case is that Bush wanted to replace U.S. Attorneys based upon, among other things, "loyalty" to the President and his policies. Apparently there is paper trial from the Executive Branch conveying the White House's desire to fire U.S. Attorneys and replace them with Bush loyalists. This could be an intrusion of the Executive Branch into the operations of the Judicial Branch. Furthermore, some fired U.S Attorneys complained of pressure from members of the Legislative Branch which they resisted and which resulted in their firings. The Attorney General's chief of staff has already resigned.
Furthermore, apparently the White House plan to replace the U.S. Attorneys contemplated the use of a loop hole in the Patriot Act which would circumvent Senate confirmation of the newly hired U.S. Attorneys, although the replacement of these U.S. Attorneys had nothing to do with fihting terrorism as contemplated by the Patriot Act.
I may be a little sketchy on some of the details... but did Bill Clinton do all this?
If I'm not mistaken the DOJ is part of the Executive branch. Assuming that it was independent of the Executive branch (thier job is to inforce the law) the current legal code on US attorneys allows the President to fire them at will vs. for cause and does not require the consent of the Senate to let them go even if they were appointed by another president.
Personally I think the code should be changed and should have them setup for a specific term with the disclaimer that they that can only be replaced for cause. They are quasi judicial / executive, but who am I to say?
MHK: You're right.. I should know this... DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. I'm embarrassed by my slip-up, but thanks for pointing it out.
Not a big deal sir as the government hierarchy is a tricky thing. The only reason I'm familiar is because I'm taking constitutional law right now and we happened to be discussing this issue in light of the recent developments. We were discussing 2 cases that help place limits and carved out the specifics of the Executive branches appointment powers from Article 2 Section 2 of the constitution.I agree with your comments about how it should work, as it would seem prudent to build additional independence into the DOJ in light of the current situation. That or we need to get rid of the changes made by the Patriot Act in reference to the DOJ. The Bush Admin keeps making arguments on why they need more power in light of 9/11, only to turn around and abuse those powers.This put into focus why we have divided government in the first place and makes me wish more Americans were paying attention when one branch makes a power grab.
Leatherhead, you're making a fool of yourself. Go back and read the details (hint: time frame in relation to terms of office) of Clinton's and Bush's firing and hiring of attorneys.
How do you keep doing this? You get the propaganda, it's debunked right to your face, and you insist on squawking out the same stoopid B.S. as if the whole reality-based world doesn't exist.
Do you even read the MMFA items, or the other posts? Do you just listen to am righty radio, log on here, and go directly to "post a new comment"? I'm trying to help you here.
helmet never comes back to defend his cut'n'paste foolishness, just another troll
Keep repeating the talking point like the good little propaganda parrot troll you are, but its not getting any less bogus
More right wingnut lies. Every President accepts the resignations of all US Attorneys - that's customary. What is extraordinary is removing them once they are in office. To conflate the typical new Presidential administration turnover with mid-term terminations is misinformation at its best.
NPR had an excellent interview with David Burnham this morning. The website text is abbreviated - listen to the whole interview if you can:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8356415&ft=1&f=3
There is quite a bit of addtional information here that is quite good. The fact of the matter is President Clinton discharged just 1 US Attorney. As did President Carter, I believe President Bush (41) and one or two others? I was driving during the interview. And surely don't forget the one US Attorney President Nixon fired - that really went over well.
NPa new
I'm trying to recall, was there not a concerted effort of at least some Wimp(41) appointees to 'embed' themselves so deep in the beuracrcy to be unfirable? I do remeber something like that, anyone else recall the details?
The Wall Street Journal editorial staff has a wide open seat at FOX. By the way, I seem to remember them hammering that Bush has the right to appoint ( and fire ) anybody he wants without reason. Doesn't that apply to all past presidents ?
The level of duplicity contained in this one editorial is astounding, though not surprising. In addition to all the items on Whitewater, I noticed something else. According to the WSJ, the then US Attorney was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment of Rostenkowski, "who was shepherding the Clinton's [sic] economic program through Congress." But glossed over was the following: Rostenkowski "eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges," which would mean that the replacement US Attorney, nominated by Clinton, continued the prosecution to the end.
there were two independent counsels who looked at whitewater. neither could find wrongdoing by the clintons. ken starr only got the job because the first counsel was going to close the case.
To people like LeatherHelmet,
Don't come crying with your usual nonsense when this President and his cronnies are investigated well after he leaves office(unless he is arrested prior to that). You naysayers always open the doors for your own ridicule by doing it first and then cry like babies when your diapers are soiled. Clean up your own s**t or the Dems will do it for you.
Clinton leaves office, everything is his fault. Ergo, when George disappears, should he not be treated with the same respect? And you just misinformed by only noting that Clinton had 93 US attorneys fired. This President fired eight non-goose stepping U.S. attorneys. Have you people no shame.
WHITEWATER----nothing LIBBY---Convicted FELON....
Start there.
The problem isn't that Bush asked for the resignations of several US Attorneys. He has that right. The problem is that the Bush administration is trying to ignore the constitution, despite their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend it.
Until February 2006, the Attorney General could appoint a US Attorney for only 120 days. If the new US Attorney hadn't been approved by the Senate, a federal judge would appoint someone.
In February 2006, a change was added 'in committee' to the Patriot Act that removed this 120-day limit. The Attorney General could now appoint a US Attorney for any period of time without Senate approval.
In one of the first uses of this power, Gonzalez appointed Tim Griffith as US Attorney in Little Roc.k When some Senators complained about this appointment, Gonzalez' chief-of-staff, Kyle Sampson, wrote in an internal email on December 19:
'I think we should gum this to death: ask the Senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say "no never" (and the longer we can forestall that, the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in "good faith," of course.'
It's disgusting. Read the emails here: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/DOJ20070313.pdf
There are many problems with this fiasco. The largest is that the Bush administration is now turning the US Attorneys into a political tool that is unfettered by any other branch of government. That's unconstitutional, that's un-American, and THAT's the issue.
those who like sausage and respect the law...
creepy. nothing quite like following the paper trail. Thanks for the links.
Yeah, thanks for the links. Those people have that kind of power? That makes me a little scared.
Whitewater investigation scoured Bill Clintons past for 7 years at a total of 70 million dollars. There were three ICs that failed to even bring a charge against Clinton. No US atty ever threatened to bring one either.
Where's the WSJ editorial asking why an IC hired to investigate a land deal in the 70's which turned out to not be a crime...turned into a zipper sniffing hunt that turned up a blue dress?
They saved that "witchhunt" editorial for Libby, the convicted felon.
Ho Hum...but the AM radio noise machine will play this tune and still the minions will dance. Nice job breaking this down BTW.
It gets curiouser and curiouser. Just as Joe Wilson got a-holed for not forcing his reality to conform to that of the Bushys, Clinton's appointee as US Attorney finding nothing more than the attorney before her is somehow incriminating.
Now we have a bunch of upstart attorneys who refuse to chase the sticks of the lunatics running our national asylum, and they're given the boot as well.
And the faithful are right here believing that Clinton did the same thing, the facts under their noses having no effect whatsoever.
Being a REpublican has got to be a real workout on that part of the brain that keeps normal humans from jumping into mirages for a dip.
Was it illegal what happened to the prosecutors?
Regardless, even if Clinton did exactly the same thing (which it appears he did not), two wrongs don't make a right....if it was illegal, so be it, go get Gonzales.
Just heard on Tom Hartman that Greg Palast has written a piece exposing that Harriet Myers was heavily involved in this, and that she was also involved in covering up the maneuvers to get Puddinhead George into the Texas Air National Guard. Of course, it will be ignored by the lapdog press, but it helps explain why she was nominated for the Supreme Court.