Media repeat claim that Clinton's dismissal of George H.W. Bush U.S. attorneys was comparable to Bush's dismissal of own U.S. attorneys
When discussing the Bush administration's dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006 -- including allegations the White House initiated the firings for political reasons -- various media personalities and news outlets have downplayed the significance of the allegations by asserting that President Clinton dismissed almost all U.S. attorneys upon taking office in 1993. For example, on the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace linked the two cases: "[H]ere's a fact you probably don't know because it hasn't been reported very -- did you know that Bill Clinton, when he came into office in 1993, fired every U.S. attorney except one?" Wallace claimed that "there were no congressional hearings" and that "it wasn't this kind of storm of protest and that ... had not happened before." But while both Clinton and Bush dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office following an administration of the opposite party, The Washington Post reported in a March 14 article that "legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."
A March 13 McClatchy Newspapers article titled "Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys" noted that "[m]ass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration." The article added that "Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees." In addition, on the March 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, former GOP presidential candidate and MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan said that "it is not unusual for all U.S. attorneys -- or almost all except some outstanding ones, to be replaced when a new party comes into power, say, in 1993 or 2001." Similarly, in a Washington Post online chat on March 14 -- noted by the weblog Talking Points Memo and Media Matters for America -- Stuart M. Gerson, assistant attorney general in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, observed, "It is customary for a President to replace U.S. attorneys at the beginning of a term." Gerson added that "Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General."
But beginning at around 2:10 p.m. ET on March 13, the top stories highlighted at Drudgereport.com, the website of Internet gossip Matt Drudge, were a March 13 Associated Press article with the headline "White House Mulled Firing All Prosecutors" and a March 24, 1993, New York Times article (subscription required) that Drudge labeled "FLASHBACK: Clinton White House Fired All Prosecutors," suggesting an equivalence between Bush's U.S. attorney purge and Clinton's 1993 housecleaning.
Over the next 24 hours, several media outlets -- seemingly taking their cue from Drudge -- made the unfounded comparison between the Clinton and Bush dismissals:
- A March 14 editorial on the attorney purge in The Wall Street Journal asserted that Attorney General Janet Reno "simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993" and "gave them 10 days to move out of their offices." The Journal concluded: "When it comes to 'politicizing' Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons."
- An article in the March 14 edition of The Washington Times asserted that "[i]ncoming presidents often dismiss all 93 U.S. attorneys, as did President Clinton in 1993." The article continued, "In that case, Mr. Clinton was accused of playing politics, because one U.S. attorney was investigating a Democratic congressman."
- In an interview with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) on the March 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, NBC White House correspondent David Gregory asserted that "President Clinton got rid of the U.S. attorneys back in 1992 when he came into office in 1993" before asking Schumer, "[W]hat's wrong here with what the White House and the Justice Department has done, in your view?"
- On the March 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor and Fox News contributor Fred Barnes said, "I don't remember ... Senator Schumer jumping up and screaming and yelling and making all these wild claims when President Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys right at the beginning of his administration in 1993." Later, host Brit Hume asked National Public Radio national correspondent Mara Liasson if it was "political" for Schumer to be "silent in the face of a mass firing of all the U.S. attorneys back in 1993 [and] to be indignant now." Liasson responded: "Yeah. If Clinton gets to have the U.S. attorneys he wants, which is what that was about ... Bush gets the U.S. attorneys he wants."
From the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: This [Attorney General] Alberto Gonzales, what's going on there? I haven't paid any attention 'cause I -- whenever I hear something like this, I just assume it's all true and everybody's lying.
WALLACE: Well, I think that's usually the way to go in any administration. And, you know, here's a fact you probably don't know 'cause it hasn't been reported very much: Did you know that Bill Clinton -- when he came into office in 1993 -- fired every U.S. attorney except one?
IMUS: No, I did not know that.
WALLACE: Yeah, it's kind of interesting. I mean, with all -- and there were no congressional hearings. It wasn't this kind of storm of protest and that had not been -- had not happened before. You'd say, "Well, OK, new presidents come in," but he fired all of them except one -- Michael Chertoff -- and he would have fired him as well, except that Bill Bradley -- he was -- Chertoff was in New Jersey, Bill Bradley spoke up for him and saved him. But --
IMUS: Why'd he fire all of them?
WALLACE: It's -- you know, it looks lousy, because the whole point is supposed to be -- yes, they're political appointees -- but once they become U.S. attorneys, they're supposed to be nonpolitical, and there is, certainly in this email traffic, an indication that political loyalty was one of the key requirements the White House wanted for these guys.
IMUS: But why did Bill Clinton fire them?
WALLACE: He just -- I don't know the reason but I think it was, "I'm coming in" --
IMUS: Oh, I see.
WALLACE: -- "and they serve at the pleasure of the president. Let's get rid of all of them. Let's get our guys in there." Of course, there'd been 12 years of Republicans, so they were all Republicans and he wanted Democratic U.S. attorneys.
From the March 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
GREGORY: Let us preface this by saying that any administration is within its rights to fire a U.S. attorney. They serve at the pleasure of the president. Former President Clinton got rid of the U.S. attorneys back in 1992 when he came into office in 1993. That said, what's wrong here with what the White House and the Justice Department has done, in your view?
From the March 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BARNES: Well, I call this a non-scandal scandal. It's barely a controversy. For the Justice Department to have handled this whole flap clumsily is too bad, but it's not important. I think Senator Schumer was wrong on every count. This is not important. This is not serious. This is not an abuse of power. This is not misuse of the Justice Department. What was that last one? It was not an unprecedented breach of trust.
I don't remember -- and I think he was in the House then -- Senator Schumer jumping up and screaming and yelling and making all these wild claims when President Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys right at the beginning of his administration in 1993.
[...]
HUME: Isn't it equally political -- or is it equally political, Mara, for Chuck Schumer, silent in the face of a mass firing of all the U.S. attorneys back in 1993, to be indignant now?
LIASSON: Yeah. If Clinton gets to have the U.S. attorneys he wants, which is what that was about, Bush gets the U.S. attorneys --
HUME: All at once.
LIASSON: -- Bush gets the U.S. attorneys he wants. Now, the one thing that Democrats said, "Well, he was trying to fire them to take advantage of this rule that would allow him to put the new ones in without congressional approval. In fact, Congress could have pulled the plug on every one of them -- every one of the new ones, if they didn't like them.
HUME: Right.
LIASSON: They did get to go into office without confirmation, but they couldn't stay there.
The firings of BOTH administrations were done for the same purpose....to pack the US Attorney's role with party members. It's just unusual to do it during a term.
And in the middle of a term becuase they were his own appointees. They simply have never been handled in this way. Also unprecedented is the new authority the Justice Dept. gave itself to appoint who ever they choose without any congressional approval. This won't go away and despite the right wing medias attempts to dismiss this, if it can be proved the White House directed these firings, its impeachment for Bush. Eat that Savage.
Patriot Act II, allowed the fired attorneys to be appointed by the Executive Branch, rather than go through Congressional confirmations or be appointed by a District Court. What are the Democrats complaining about? Most of the Democratic Senators voted for Patriot Act II which renewed 14 of 16 provisions of the first Patriot Act and inserted other provisions such as Sec 502 giving the President the above authority. Clinton, Lieberman, Obama, McCain, and Reid were among those voting for the Act. The House on the other hand had a majority of Democrats opposed to the Act; with a notable exception of Edwards, who voted for it. Yes, Bush may have pushed the envelope on the authority the Democrats gave him, but he has done it before. Nothing learned.
That is the weakest argument I've ever heard. There are plenty of Blue Dog Democrats that are easily cowed by Republicans big deal. Arlen Spector wasn't aware of this when he signed the Patriot Act 2, nobody knew. Thye snuck it in at the last minute. Nothing new here? What part of unprecedented do you not understand? You should be outraged not pacified.
What the hell kind of excuse is it for Arlen Spector to say he didn't know it?
He is a freakin' attorney.
Civics lesson. Our elected representatives don't often have time to read what they vote on. I wishh it weren't so. But don't blame the duped for the crimes of the duper.
and the staffer who snuck it in was a dumbaya loyalist that was pushed onto Spector from the lates i have heard.
So it's impeachment over firing attorneys and NOT committing war crimes on the people of Iraq or torturing prisoners in US custody. Another example of skewed priorities.
I saw this whole "attorneygate" and thought...OMG Am I wacthing WAG THE DOG? Nothing like a fabricated scandal to dissprove left media bias. What's next? "W" forgot his aniversary? IMPEACH!
Don't read much do you? There's no need to explain it to you because the rebuttal to your opinion is clearly displayed above. You would do yourslef and others a favor by taking a simple civics course. You seem to repeatedly not get how governement works and what is unprecedented behavior, what is common and which media is biased.
For someone who decided not to answer my question of proof that Foxnews is bias your response is quite pompous. Ironically enough, I think we both want Bush impeached, I just want it for different reasons, now, if you would kindly explain how this is much different from congress trying to micromanage a war once they've given the president (commander in chief, last time I checked) the power to go to war? And just because it's unusual doesn't mean it's criminal. Thes attorney's serve "at the pleasure of the president". At least none of these attorney's was actively investigating Bush's past dealings. If "questionable acts" is all you've got, perhaps you must move on. Please, enlighten as to the crimes of their removal.
Micromanaging a war is better than no management at all, or the way Bush manages it. Catastrophes of this war is a result of not managing it closely.
It really hurts you that surge is working doesn't it?
Bush can hire/fire the attorneys whenever he feels like for any reason. Period.
The surge is working? Wow. You gave to be really gullible to buy that one.
How can the surge be working, when it hasn't been implemented yet? Maybe, just maybe, Patraeus (who I believe to be a very good on the ground General by the way) has changed tactics and strategy in theatre, and it is entirely possible that this change in the way they do things is changing things around in Iraq, although it is far from over, and it is far from being changed a lot yet, but there appears to be some progress, but you can't pin it on something that hasn't happened yet.
My God you guys are delusional.
This scandal is not just about replacing US attorneys. They were replaced because the Justice Department and White House were interfering with on-going trials and investigations. They were warning prosecutors to stop pursuing cases against Republicans. That is ILLEGAL. It's obstruction of justice.
Gonzalez's Chief of Staff did not resign the other day for no reason. He had to know there were illegal activities going on, or he would have remained in his position. Republican lawmakers are even calling for Gonzalez to step down over this. Republicans do not do that because they hate Bush, or for partisan reasons.
I won't even get into your "the surge is working" delusion. That just proves how far your head is lodged up your derriere.
We can't impeach Bush until someone he isn't married to gives him oral sex.
I don't think the bj was why he was impeached. It has something to do with lying under oath, kind of like libby. Besides, it wasn't so much that he got a bj, but that he did it at the work place. If you did that at work, and got caught, wouldn't you get fired? Reprimanded?
On topic: Savage brings up a good point, none of these guys are actively investigating Bush, unlike the ones that Clinton fired who were actively investigating him because of the whitewater scandal (and subsequently cleared...go figure). It sure helps to be able to fire the lawyers who are investigating wrong-doings that you did, and then place more 'favorable' lawyers in their places.
Hey Auto
"Don't you think you would be fired for gettint a bj at work". NO, not if you are the boss.
And if you work at home, as the President does.
Thank God we have the above examples of the 'liberal morals' at work! No wonder we have kids being forced to take vaccine shots at the age of 12 for STD's!! The morals you support keep getting our kids in trouble at younger and younger ages. You must be VERY proud of your achievements!
Yeah because it is so much better that those who actually DO engage in sexual activity DIE of ovarian cancer. THAT is SOOOOO moral. You must be proud of your pious scolding dont fall off that pedestal. Your blatant ignorance on the other hand is something people used to be ashamed of, bravo on parading yours upfront
Gee you are flat out wrong AGAIN, what were the chances?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703150010
You keep repeating the rightwing lies yet they dont magically become true, you must be doing it wrong, keep trying
Ah, ha ha ha. You're funny. You offer an article by mmfa as "proof" that my arguement is incorrect? Wow, you've GOT to do better than that. Just as you would never accept supporting evidence brought by right wing publications, I cannot accept (as evidence) left wing propoganda sites as credible sources. What's your next attempt? CBS, PBS?? I think you've been dipping into the koolaid a little too much, lately.
I dont drink koolaid thats a rightwing brand of self abuse. I linked to MMFA because they DOCUMENTED this with links of their own and its more practical than linking to three other sites. The bottom line is simply that you are FLAT OUT WRONG, repeating a rightwing LIE really. Unless you can refute the INFORMATION in the sources then this was weak. MMFA has a good track record of documenting their claims. YOU just hate facts and reality and run from them like a vampire shuns sunlight. Its not my fault that you continually show that you can repeat the rightwing lies but when it comes to actually knowing what you are talking about you fall flat on your face.
Civics! If you can't differentiate between the two you have a profound ignorance of how our government works. What bush and Gonalez have done is unprecedented. He's fired his own appointees and for obvious political reasons as no proof has been offered for poor performance. That's not supposed to happen. Once a an attorney is appointed by the president they are off limits. They must perform independently to do their job. that wasn't done here.
As political appointees, they serve "at the pleasure of the President," and can be replaced, at least theoretically, at any time for any reason. - Time Magazine
Dammit, well, I guess it's not as bad as you make it sound.
When Clinton came in, most U.S. attorneys were replaced and I'm assuming they were all approved by the Senate w/ no complaints from the Congress for him doing so. When the Supreme Court made Bush president, he replaced most of the U.S. attorneys and again I'm assuming they were all approved by the Senate w/ no complaints from the Congress for him doing so. What Bush has done is fire attorneys in the middle of his term for political reasons (they weren’t indicting enough Democrats) and replaced them w/ hacks that were not approved by the Senate because of some provision snuck into the Patriot Act by some assw*pe.
SR You do understand that the role of the Executive Branch is to uphold the law and protect the best interest of the American people right? While the constitution allows the president to remove them "at will" do you think its ethical or in the interest of the American public to have members of your staff and other politicians try to pressure US attorneys into pursuing issues that are strictly partisan in nature? How does that further the best interest of the American people? Why do you continue to act like this issue is only about what the president can or cannot do? He could have you arrested tomorrow and thrown into G-bay, but that doesn't make it correct or ethical.
On another note:
The constitution requires the Senate to approve US attorneys, in light of that, what do you think of this e-mail from the DOJ?http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/DOJ20070313.pdfSavage, what Bush has done is unprecedented. Look it up.
Funny, the newpaper articles from when Cllinton fired 93 said that was unprecedented.
And they were wrong. Must be the liberal nedia bias. Do your own research and you will find that everyincoming president asks for the resignations of the previous administrations appointees. You may want to reread the article as you may have confused some of the wording.
Yes indeed, they can be replaced at any point time by the President, but normally what happens is that they are replaced because they are poorly performing in their job duties, NOT because they're not toting the party line, which is apparently what has happened in this case, as far as we can tell so far. This has wide ranging implications, and possibly damaging implications, because even though the US Attorneys are political employees, they are hired to enforce, and prosecute the laws of this country, as they see fit, not as the Bush administration (or any other administration for that matter) sees fit. They are not allowed to "interpret" the laws, and how they proceed with prosecuting those in their districts, they are allowed free reign from the administration, because it is entirely possible that they could be prosecuting someone within the administration, or someone tied closely to the administration. The position of US Attorney is not a political position.
That's the problem with what Bush has done here. Firing 8 attorneys, not because they were not doing their jobs, but apparently because they weren't doing their jobs to benefit the Bush administration. This is a huge issue, and the very smallest thing that should happen is Gonzales should resign, immediately. And then we move from there. There are laws that may have been broken (interferring with a federal criminal case for instance), and who knows how far up it goes... We'll see finally, because now we have a democratically controlled Congress who can use oversight to check the White House. It took 6 years, but finally, the Bush administration is quickly finding out that they can't just 'do what they want when they want' there are rules, and laws and we may finally have someone to hold them accountable.
There is no left media bias you argue from a flawed premise itsefl a logical fallacy. There are plenty of things that are legal that are not RIGHT and have political consequences. This is one of them. Firing his own appointees for doing their jobs in a non partisan fashion is a valid political issue.
Every day there's another way to impeach the president. See what happens when the government works the way it's supposed to? Everyone, even the king, becomes truly accountable.
Funny, I posted earlier today that I heard Limbaugh as I went to grab some lunch, and this was the talking point.My B.S. detector went off immediately, knowing that most incoming presidents clean house a little bit. My first question was "when did Clinton can all the attorneys?" Obviously, he didn't mention a date.
By the time I got back to work, checked up and found out that Bush had done the same thing (I think a greater number of attorneys were changed), a righty poster had already swallowed it and was showing off his gullibility.
I'm going to give weinerocks some credit here, he sounds like he's figured it out and is going with the "it's not illegal" spin.
Or he hasn't heard the Rush talking point yet.
"Please, enlighten as to the crimes of their removal." -- Savagerocks
Christ what a handle. As all the cards are not on the table and I expect we will find out more as the weeks go on. Let's start with a conspriracy to intimidated federal officials, attempting to illegally influence elections, or how about the WH breaking its oath of office to uphold the Constitution by blantantly punishing the US prosecutor who indicted one of their own the "Dukester" on one of the only two crimes it mentions by name -- Bribery.
There is more but who has the time. This adminstration and the last Congress majority party is or was obstructing justice since before 9/11.
Well here we go again, no matter what G.W. screws up the republican can play their "BILL CLINTON GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD" Typical Right Wing Propaganda. They are playing the game 6% of Bill Clinton. Like the one they have in Hollywood wih Kevin Bacon No matte who it is in Hollywood they can some how b tied to Kevin Bacon. It's the same thing in D.C. No matter what DUH-bya Screws up it can be blame on Bill Clinton.
I think that is because, like Bacon is in so many movies, Clinton screwed up so much it's just so easy to tie into all his screw ups. The two biggest laughing stocks of presidential history are Clinton and Bush II, of course they're going to compared to each other so constantly.
do you guys ever talk anything but a lot of dittohead talking points?
Well, what did he 'screw-up'? Iraq had no WMD's, he had arrested and jailed the ones who did WTC 1, as well as our home-grown terrorist Timmy, the ecomony was growing (all of it, not just the top 1%) and North korea was at least talking and we had Kim not making much less testing nukes.
Gosh, what a screw-up!
Bush arrested the mastermind of WTC 1, not Clinton.
That is false. He was caught, tried and jailed before Bush even announced he was running. That's an easily verifiable fact and really displays your ignorance on the subject. Seriously, there's no wiggle room with this, you are just flat out 100% incorrect.
Do you actually ever check anything you say, or just spout talking points. Because you're wrong.
Agents and bomb technicians of the U. S. Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) responded to the scene of the blast. An ATF bomb technician subsequently found the axle in the bomb crater with the VIN of the Ryder truck that was used to contain the explosives. Further investigation by ATF found that the vehicle had been rented by a Palestinian named Mohammad Salameh. Yousef's friends reported the van was stolen in an attempt to slow investigators down.
On March 4, 1993 authorities announced the capture of Salameh. In March 1994, Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj were each convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the World Trade Center bombing.
In a sweep the same day, Salameh's arrest led to the apartment of Abdul Rahman Yasin in Jersey City, New Jersey, which Yasin was sharing with his mother, in the same building as Ramzi Yousef's apartment. Yasin was taken to FBI headquarters in Newark, New Jersey, and was then released. The next day, he flew back to Iraq, via Amman, Jordan. Yasin was later indicted for the attack, and in 2001 he was placed on the initial list of the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, on which he remains a fugitive today. He disappeared prior to 2003's U.S. coalition invasion in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The capture of Salameh and Yasin led authorities to Ramzi Yousef's apartment, where they found bomb-making materials and a business card from Mohammed Jamal Khalifa. Khalifa was arrested in relation to the crime on December 14, 1994, and was deported to Jordan by the INS on May 5, 1995. He was acquitted by a Jordanian court and now lives as a free man in Saudi Arabia.
Notice all of the dates quoted where withing Clinton's presidency, but don't let the facts get in the way of your argument by any stretch of the imagination. There is one guy who was indicted for the attack who has not been apprehended yet. He's still on the loose. So, again, you're definitely, wrong...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
not only did you lie again helmet, you evaded all the other subjects as well. This does not reflect well on you at all.
Maybe he didn't lie, but is ignorant of the truth? I'm not making excuses for the person known as Leatherhelmet, but in today's society, and where he and or she, gets their talking points and information (Rush et all), it is entirely possible for someone to be utterly and completely ignorant of what the facts are. And in this case, I'm sure that he/she is completely unaware of the facts, and is ignorant of the truth, not just on this, but on other things as well.
Wow you really are allergic to facts and reality arent you?
So if something is not a crime... then it makes it right and inline with tradition and common sense? Listen to what you are implying savagerocks.
these folks are pretending not to understand...the difference between what Bush is trying to do and what Clinton did in 93, and Bush also did in 2001.
The difference is clearly outlined. Hey here's an idea, let's talk about that Khalid guy who made that same confession the Post is telling us about today...FIVE YEARS AGO. Newsworthy? Your call.
it is the same... unless you actually examine the two cases... but Republicants aren't ones for the details... especially when political advantage is at stake...
I just want to quickly lay it out for the skeptics.
The following is what the United States Code used to say before the reauthorization:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000546----000-.html
§ 546. Vacancies
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant. (b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent. (c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of— (1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or (2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section. (d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.Note: if you click on "How current is this?" the link will tell you that it is a year or two old.
This is what it says after reauthorization on Page 56 of 87:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ177.109.pdfSEC. 502. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.
Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:
‘‘(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.’’.
LITERALLY BOTH OF THE PARTS THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH TIME LIMITS FOR INTERIM U.S. ATTORNEY APPOINTEES WERE TAKEN OUT. IF THE PRESIDENT NEVER GETS AROUND TO APPOINTING SOMEBODY ELSE, THE INTERIM APPOINTEE NEVER HAS TO LEAVE.