Channeling WSJ editorial, Hannity accused Clinton of "firing the Little Rock attorney" because he was "investigati[ng]" Whitewater
On the March 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity attempted to downplay the Bush administration's recent controversial firings of eight U.S. attorneys by accusing President Bill Clinton of "fir[ing] the Little Rock U.S. attorney" in 1993 because he had launched an "investigation into ... the Whitewater deal." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted when The Wall Street Journal made a similar claim in a March 14 editorial, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas at the time of Clinton's election -- Charles A. Banks -- had refused to pursue 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 has also documented, the extensive investigation into Whitewater -- initiated several years after Clinton took office -- ultimately led the independent counsel to close the probe without charging the Clintons with any wrongdoing.
Hannity also stated that "in the Clinton years, when he first comes into office ... they fired 93 U.S. attorneys," and suggested that Clinton's actions were comparable to Bush's midterm dismissal of eight attorneys. In fact, as Media Matters has noted, a March 14 Washington Post article reported 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 -- headlined "Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys" -- similarly reported 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 the fall of 1992, I. Jean Lewis, an investigator for the Resolution Trust Corporation, sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department outlining the purported Whitewater conspiracy and naming Bill and Hillary Clinton as witnesses. But contrary to Hannity's suggestion that Banks was "investigati[ng] ... the Whitewater deal" at the time Clinton took office, Mollie Dickenson noted in a February 1998 Salon.com article that he had rejected Lewis' referral, citing his belief that "no prosecutable case existed against" the Clintons. Journalist Joe Conason further notes in his upcoming March 19 New York Observer column that 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. 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.
Following Clinton's replacement of Banks with Paula Casey, Lewis again attempted to persuade the U.S. attorney's office to investigate the Whitewater matter. But Casey also declined to pursue the case, citing Banks' analysis, as Conason and political columnist Gene Lyons noted in their book, The Hunting of the President (Thomas Dunne Books, 2000):
Lewis became particularly exercised after Paula Casey, citing analyses by Justice Department experts and former 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."
From the March 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: You know something, Mary? We're now at the stage where, you know, not only is Bush wrong on everything, he's responsible for anything that goes wrong. You know, Hillary's statement as quoted in the -- in the Daily News today, you know, basically blaming Bush for cuts to community policing programs leading, you know, to this incident.
You look at, for example, in -- in the Clinton years, when he first comes into office, he, along with Janet Reno, they fired 93 U.S. attorneys. In the case of the investigation into Arkansas and the Whitewater deal, they fire the Little Rock U.S. attorney. They replaced that U.S. attorney with a former law student of Mr. Clinton's. And, yet, they -- they're trying to make hay on everything.
Is this part of a strategy -- keep the Republicans off balance, on defense, create an impression of impropriety at all times? Is this part of the 2008 strategy?
MARY MATALIN (Republican strategist): Well, of course it is. And it's not a secret. It's not part of the vast left-wing conspiracy, which is far more tangible than anything she thinks is happening on the right, or they do. They -- It's an announced strategy. They've said it forever. They said it in the election. They pronounced it when they came into office, that they weren't going to govern, they were going to investigate, and they were going to bash Bush. And if he could prove to them he could walk on water, they'd say, "Well, you can't swim," as the old political adage goes.
HANNITY: Yeah.
Mary Matalin and Hannity
Two established liars and 100% pure Clinton haters. I said it yesterday on another post, that these people will not stop bringing up Clinton, everything is Clintons fault and if Clinton did it (which he did not in hthis case) Bush can do it. It is quite disgusting.
I guess that's all they've got left. As the putrid details of the Bush administration's corruption bubble to the surface, the "Clinton was worse" defense will become more and more shrill.
The longer Dems control the house and senate the more Fox news will try to cover the RNC's a$$. They seem to be getting more and more desperate over there.
The truth is all starting to come out and the majority of the public can see when something isn't right. Everything I have seen come from the right wing in a good while is just spin.
(Dems do the same thing, but the republicans seem so much more pathetic.)
When in doubt....Smear the Clintons again!
The repugs have absolutly nothing left to work with. They're President is a digrace and the smell of corruption is all over the place. When you can't do anything but blame Pres. Clinton who has been out of office for over SIX YEARS now then you know the desperation is setting in.
Truly Pathetic.
The reason they keep bringing up Clinton is that they are hanging by their own rope.
When Junior& Co. took all houses of government they PROMISED a much better government than the previous. Jr & Co. promised the American people that they would unite the country, bring honesty and integrity back to the White House and our country. They promised to provide a SMALLER government run by people with the most experience. They promised that their government would be transparent because they were looking out for the American people and they had nothing to hide. And that ickier stuff (sex), they would not have such things going own in their White House.
I think they should have at least had the sex part.
I heard Hannity's radio program last night, and he spewed the same nonsense. However a tenacious caller challenged him, and pointed out that Clinton's dismissals at the beginning of a term were completely different than Bush firing his own appointees in a large group, and he pointed out that Hannity was, as usual, trying to attack Clinton when he was unable to defend Bush. Hannity, not being able to refute this, said "You do not like Bush, do you?" When the caller admiited that he did not, and that he disagreed with "about 99% of what Bush does" Hannity went off on a tirade, saying that liberals hate Bush so much that they will criticize him no matter what he does, and then he said that he objects when those criticisms undermine our troops and put their lives at risk. It was the most unbelievable non-sequiter in history. Then he says, "It just makes no sense to talk to someone like you" and he hangs up on the caller. The most amazing thing was that although this stunt made Hannity appear to have the debating skills of a third grader, the next caller says "Man, it was wonderful to hear you take that caller apart." Many of Hannity's listeners are completely clueless, and they have no idea how manipulated they are by his tactics.
Dead right, Mark. I listen to Hannity as well as other righty talkers.It's fascinating to hear the ham-fisted propaganda and huge jumps in logic, then hear their fans call in and stroke them for their brilliance.
I guess you hear what you want to hear.
C;mon, you got to love Bush....he's the party Leader. We all have to love the Leader. People who don't love the Leader are traitors. Why, Bush is like a big brother to the nation, protecting us all from the big bad terrorists. Don't you want a big brother looking after you? Don't you love the Leader?
Mark:
Unfortunately, Hannity has the luxury of having the last word on anyone who disagrees with him on his show, either by hanging up on them or shutting off their audio as he goes on an apologetic rant on how Bush is the greatest leader in US history (next to Reagan and Christ, of course).
But ultimately, and especially to Hannity's sheep-like fans, it is easiest to place a stereotypical liberal label on people like the caller you mention, and dismiss all his good points out of hand.
But why shouldn't Hannity continue to do this? Especially if his fans are stupid enough to suck it up like Kool-Aid; it does nothing but buoy up Hannity's inflated sense of self-importance.
Indigo (from Aurora, IL)
What's Clinton or Reno have to do with this administration's attempt to politicize the Justice Department by using a little known provision of the Patriot Act?
Nothing, but it is the only defense the Bush supporters have.
Because Clinton and Reno fired 93 attorneys. It was an unprecedented act. Bush would have to fire 8 a day for the next two weeks to match Clinton.
The Patriot Act is the law and most democrats voted for it. Bush had every legal right to can whatever attorney he wants to. I don't know why the left is whining so badly.
"Because Clinton and Reno fired 93 attorneys. It was an unprecedented act."
At the start of his first term, if i'm not mistaken?
So Clinton wasn't allowed to put his own appointees in?
But it's ok if Bush fires his own appointees? It may be his perogative to do such but given that this administration politicizes EVERYTHING one wonders what the ulterior motives are for such actions.
As for Whitewater - Trying to re-write history - hmnn seems like a typical right-wing tactic to me..
You keep clinging to a moot point. What Clinton did was no different than what Bush did when he came into office. What's being investigated now is whether or not the White House ordered these attorney's to be fired for political reasons. Take a course in civics please.
keep on cutting'n'pasting those lies from freeper-land helmet. keep reminding us that all to many cons hate America so deeply.
Leather, you've been having this explained to you since noon yesterday. Are you really that dense, or are you trying to be funny??
Why does MMFA always neglect to say the Whitewater investigation was obstructed by Susan McDougal who refused to testify?
The Clintons were not cleared, the investigation was thwarted.
Susan McDougal did *NOT* "refuse to testify."
She refused to go by the script Starr and his goons wanted her to testify to.
And the Clintons LOT MONEY on the whole Whitewater deal.
Starr and his goon squad were going on wild stories being tossed around by two guys, Jim McDougal and David Hale, who were so crooked they had to screw their pants on, and deserately wanted to stay out of jail.
So they lied, and lied, and lied, and lied.
And Starr was willing to sell his soul to "get Clinton."
Clinton bombed four nations, presided over a record prison population and used chemical warfare against South American civilians....and all the right could go after him for was a sex scandal. Shows where their heads are at, don't it.
Because it's irrelevant. There was no wrong doing found. I know that make syou real mad but it's the truth. The Clinton's lost money and Ken Starr turned over every rock and couldn't find any criminal activity. That WAS a witch hunt. this is not.
Susan McDougal didn't testify because there was nothing to testify against regarding the Clintons. Ken Starr was intimidating people down in Little Rock and pressuring people to testify when "there was no there there", to use a familiar phrase.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Clinton fired U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his term, which is usually done when a new Administration comes in. George Bush fired U.S. Attorneys in the middle of his term, and did it because they weren't carrying the political water for this Administration.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Hannity getting talking points from the Wall Street Journal, what a surprise. They are the same editorial board that accused Clinton of being behind the murders of two teenage boys in Arkansas.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Hannity is a charter member of the HCAAC club.
Hate Clinton At All Costs.
(Any Clinton)
I might add that Bush fired all of the Clinton appointed Attorneys at the BEGINNING of his presidency. 6 years later, he fired 8 of the HIS OWN appointed attorneys. Oh yeah, and he ironically, fired Harriot Myers too.
...and he used the Patriot Act to appoint those attorneys without Congressional oversight.
I'm so tired of this "Well Clinton did it" defense of what is happening now. Even "if" Clinton did it as well, it has no relation whatsoever to what is happening within the Bush administration now. There were tons of things Clinton did that I didn't agree with, but he's starting to look better and better perched up next to George W. Bush's presidency that's for sure. I mean, it's not even close these days. Well, it wasn't that close before, but I digress.
What these arsehats fail to mention, when they talk of this US Attorney getting fired for looking into Whitewater, is the whole entire multiple years long ordeal of the Ken Starr investigation that looked into Whitewater into its most minute details, turned over every single rock ever known to mankind, and found, nothing. Nothing, as it pertained to Whitewater. We all know that they found a stained dress and Ms. Lewinsky, but that wasn't even the point of the investigation. The independent counsel's office spent millions of our tax dollars investigating what turned out to be, nothing... Get a clue Hannity et all. Get a clue...
There was a time when Pravda amused us all with the clear propaganda it distributed, and brought chuckles to us when we considered that Pravda must have assumed that the readers would actually accept its more ludicrous stories.
Today, Fox Noise Channel offers the same kind of approach and thereby amuses all of us who dare to think for ourselves. The stable of clowns in its employ, featuring Sean Hannuttsy and Shill O'Reilly, hold The Dupes in the Country in rapt attention and quickly send them into a frenzy of cheering against themselves in response to the huge volume of bilge being duped on them.
Janus
There was a time when Pravda amused us all with the clear propaganda it distributed, and brought chuckles to us when we considered that Pravda must have assumed that the readers would actually accept its more ludicrous stories.
Today, Fox Noise Channel offers the same kind of approach and thereby amuses all of us who dare to think for ourselves. The stable of clowns in its employ, featuring Sean Hannuttsy and Shill O'Reilly, hold The Dupes in the Country in rapt attention and quickly send them into a frenzy of cheering against themselves in response to the huge volume of bilge being dumped on them.
Janus
Prev | 21 - 40 |
Post a new commentYour comment Path: <!-- <ul> <li>Blank lines become paragraph divisions.</li> <li>You may use the following HTML tags:<br> <code><a> <ol> <ul> <li> <i> <em> <b> <strong> <blockquote></code></li> </ul> -->