Hannity falsely compared Obama replacing U.S. attorneys to Bush's controversial firings
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity falsely suggested that President Obama's plans to replace current U.S. attorneys with his own appointees -- consistent with the practice of previous recently elected presidents -- are analogous to President Bush's controversial firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.
On the May 15 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity suggested that President Obama's plans to replace current U.S. attorneys with his own appointees are analogous to President Bush's controversial firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. In fact, there is no comparison between Obama's actions, which are consistent with incoming presidents' practice of replacing their predecessor's U.S. attorneys with new appointees, and Bush's firings of his own appointees during his second term, which were characterized as "unprecedented" by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in a September 2008 report.
During the segment, Hannity said: "[R]emember how outraged Democrats were when President Bush replaced a handful of his own U.S. attorneys? Now, liberals claim the prosecutors were unjustly removed for political reasons and argued that President Bush had no right to replace his own appointees. Well, get this -- according to the AP, on the very same day that Karl Rove is reportedly meeting with a prosecutor to discuss President Bush's decision, President Obama is one step closer to ousting a group of U.S. attorneys." Hannity later aired a clip of Attorney General Eric Holder stating during a May 14 congressional hearing, "Elections matter. It is our intention to have the U.S. attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as we can." Hannity then said: "All right. 'Elections matter'? That's your reason? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that considered politically motivated?"
As Media Matters for America has noted, in a March 23, 2007, Los Angeles Times article, David G. Savage wrote that the "pattern" of presidents' replacing U.S. attorneys upon taking office "go[es] back to President Reagan." From Savage's article:
But historical data compiled by the Senate show the pattern going back to President Reagan.
Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.
In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.
The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.
The report by the OIG and OPR, which explored the Bush administration's "reasons for the removals of the U.S. Attorneys and whether they were removed for partisan political purposes," found that the firings were "an unprecedented removal of a group of high-level Department officials." The report concluded:
In sum, we believe that the process used to remove the nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 was fundamentally flawed. While Presidential appointees can be removed for any reason or for no reason, as long as it is not an illegal or improper reason, Department officials publicly justified the removals as the result of an evaluation that sought to replace underperforming U.S. Attorneys. In fact, we determined that the process implemented largely by Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, was unsystematic and arbitrary, with little oversight by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or any other senior Department official. In choosing which U.S. Attorneys to remove, Sampson did not adequately consult with the Department officials most knowledgeable about their performance, or even examine formal evaluations of each U.S. Attorney's Office, despite his representations to the contrary.
[...]
The Department's removal of the U.S. Attorneys and the controversy it created severely damaged the credibility of the Department and raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecutive decisions. We believe that this investigation, and final resolution of the issues raised in this report, can help restore confidence in the Department by fully describing the serious failures in the process used to remove the U.S. Attorneys and by providing lessons for the Department in how to avoid such failures in the future.
From the May 15 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: And tonight in "Hannity's America": Now, remember how outraged Democrats were when President Bush replaced a handful of his own U.S. attorneys? Now, liberals claim the prosecutors were unjustly removed for political reasons and argued that President Bush had no right to replace his own appointees. Well, get this -- according to the AP, on the very same day that Karl Rove is reportedly meeting with a prosecutor to discuss President Bush's decision, President Obama is one step closer to ousting a group of U.S. attorneys. Listen to this.
HOLDER [video clip]: We are working as quickly as we can to put new U.S. attorneys in place. I expect that we'll have an announcement in the next couple of weeks with regard to our first batch of U.S. attorneys.
HANNITY: All right. I bet that's really going to get the Democrats' blood boiling. Hey, Mr. Attorney General, what's the reason for these firings?
HOLDER [video clip]: Elections matter. It is our intention to have the U.S. attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as we can.
HANNITY: All right. "Elections matter"? That's your reason? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that considered politically motivated?
And so yesterday karl rove finally submitted to the investigation into the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, and yet it's only now being mentioned by hannity, and only for the purpose of defending his Fox colleague karl, by straining to say what? Everybody does it? Or President Obama is about to do it?
I don't know and I don't care, all I know is that this matter has flown right under the radar screen, and continues to do so, despite the real and substantial and perhaps criminal dirt there is here.
To refresh for a moment:
You all know the circumstances of the U.S. Attorneys being fired, and I'll note something about that in a moment, but recall now that karl rove resigned from the Bush administration because of this very matter, after he had been voted by the Senate Judiciary Committee to be in "Contempt of Congress" (a criminal offense) on July 30 2008, for defying that Committee's subpoena to appear before them in their investigation of this matter... again, karl rove refused to appear and to obey a subpoena, and was then cited by the legal body that issued that subpoena (the Senate's Judiciary Committee) as being in Contempt of Congress, on JULY 30 2008... rove then announced his resignation just two weeks later, while the Senate was in their recess (and therefore out of town) on AUGUST 13 2008... and he left the Bush administration and Washington D.C. in just another two weeks on AUGUST 31 2008, before the U.S. Senate came back from their recess to reconvene: he skipped town while under subpoena and before Contempt charges might have been brought against him!
This is extraordinary and important, it was then and it is now, yet at that time you were distracted in the media from this fact... karl rove refused to obey a U.S. Senate subpoena, and was cited by the Senate as being in Contempt of Congress: and two weeks later, while Congress is away on recess, he announces his resignation, and leaves town in just another two weeks, before the U.S. Senate reconvenes: "ROVE SKIPS TOWN WHILE UNDER SUBPOENA AND AFTER BEING CITED FOR CONTEMPT" is how all the newspapers and television and radio news should have been reporting it...
Anyway, so he finally submits to the investigation yesterday, but who would ever know it, as it flies under a radar screen so clouded with "torture memo" noise, and now "torture briefing" noise, and that's intentional I say.
To wrap it up: I mentioned the firings of the U.S. Attorneys, and I want to note something about that.
If even one of those U.S. Attorneys was fired in an attempt to influence or interfere with any ongoing investigation or case by those Attorneys, or even in an attempt to prevent any such investigation, or in anticipation of matters for that particular U.S. Attorney's Office, to fire the Attorney so as to 'pre-empt' any investigation or case or the handling of same, any or all of this might be an OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE... only an investigation can find out for sure... an investigation that rove refused to cooperate with (as I recounted to you), and is only now being subjected to...
All of it under the radar screen, a radar screen so cluttered and cloudy with "torture" noise... "torture" noise that karl rove himself is making, at Fox.
Lastly, in regard to OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, consider this here...
Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States
Does that sound like a description of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
Because it is... it's the Fourth Clause under the First Article of Impeachment drafted by the U.S. House of Representatives and passed by their Judiciary Committee, in the Impeachment of Richard Nixon: that First Article being titled OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
The charge was made for as much as any other reason, because Richard Nixon attempted to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox.
This is important stuff... the firing of the U.S. Attorneys and karl rove's skipping away from an investigation and Justice, it all smacks of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE... and it's all flying under the radar screen.
By by all means, keep obsessing about "torture memos" (and now "torture briefings"), because that's the song being sung by every imaginable Republican media hack right now, karl rove included, isn't it?
(A) a citation in an article of Impeachment, particularly one that was never passed, has no weight of Law. Nixon was not impeached.
(B) you forgot to use the citations for the articles of Impeachment against William Clinton that were passed.
(C) you forgot to mention that obstruction of justice was declined by 41 Senators after the Senate Trial of W.Clinton as sufficient grounds for removal from office. In fact, though 59 voted for removal, the inapplicability of obstruction of justice as a grounds for impeachment was successfully argued by every one of the Democratic Senators. They argued that ONLY bribery and treason during a time of declared war were sufficient grounds for impeachment. Their side prevailed.
(D) since this charge was not pursued when these men were in office and subject to impeachment, you are now asking a criminal court to pursue what Democratic Leadership was unwilling to pursue when they had the power to do so and when Bush and Cheneey had the power to repeat these actions. Now you want a court to rule that as President Bush committed a crime that as President he could not have been prosecuted for and that, since he's no longer President, he's no longer in a position to repeat. I suspect that as Al Gore explained in response to the Bhuddist Temple fundraising scandal and the misuse of public resources for political campaigning charges, "There IS no prevailing authority to pursue these matters."
P.S. You might tell TradekKorn that ignoring the other side of the story leads to a closed mind.
(A) I never said it passed, or that he was Impeached. Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency before the House of Representatives could Impeach him. The whole world knows this... You must be a genius if you know this too.
(B) No I didn't forget.
(C) I didn't forget, nor did I need to remember, something that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
(D) OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE is a crime... no one needs to hold public office, or be removed from public office, to be charged with the crime of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. karl rove can be charged with that crime... even Richard Nixon could have, once he left Office, had he not been Pardoned.
P.S. I haven't a clue who or what 'TradeKorn' is, and don't bother telling me because I don't care either.
I just saw who TradeKorn is...
Hi TradeKorn, nice to meet you! And thanks for your kind words... and I'm sort of just 'hit or miss' when I try to write out my opinions reasonably and clearly, but there sure is a dearth of well considered and well written Policy opinions in the media, and I personally think there's far better things written here at Media Matters, and in their comments section too, than you find in a lot of newspapers, and definitely more than you find prattled and chattered about on cable television... anyway, thanks for what you posted TradeKorn.
(B)&(C) If you didn't forget, then you must have intentionally overlooked. Citing the Nixon articles as an example was inappropriate enough, failing to cite the similar article in the Clinton impeachment and the implications of its rejection by the Democrats is still more inappropriate. Do I need to remind you that the focus of this article was an attempt to assert that the Bush firings were somehow illegal or immoral and that the Left has tried for a couple of years now to cite this as a grounds for impeachment. Now that Obama has fired people for not agreeing with his politics the Left is doing its typiocal desperate contortions trying to get truth to wind around their agenda. I just pointed out the hypocritical nature of your post. I can understand why that would make you feel all defensive but too bad. You used the reference to impeachment articles and said,"This is important stuff." You just don't like it when your failure to apply objectivity is exposed.
(D) "I didn't forget, nor did I need to remember, something that has nothing to do with what I wrote." These alleged crimes were committed when these people were under the immunity status afforded to the Administration. If they were crimes, the House, controlled since 2006 by the Demmocrats, could have brought impeachment charges. They didn't. It may be possible that some prosecutor could bring charges. It's highly unlikely they could get a conviction. When Bush was President was the time to challenge his alleged illegalities. Now, as Gore said, it may be that there is no prevailing authority. The prosecution you suggest is without legal precedent.
And shame on you for picking on TradeKorn, (which may be a reference to an Uncle Scrooge comic book story written in the late 1950s by Carl Barks and published by Dell Publishing), he was just mindlessly endorsing your entirely partisan view of existence. But whatever you do, don't let any actual awareness of contrary opinions enter your consciousness. That would make you as dumb and ill-informed as all of us Conservatives must be.
Rather I think its the best he could do as a distraction. Cause the connections between Chenny and torture are becoming hard to ignore. And we can't have people thinking about that.
"Blah Blah Blah I didn't read the article. Wake up people! Your Messiah is assembling his Fasco-Social Totalitarian Enablers blah blah blah..."
And the purpose of the firings is to have a Justice Department that is more in line with the President and the Attorney General.
If you knew anything about our system of government and about past administrations and their transitions from one president to another you'd understand.
There's nothing sinister about it, it's just the way the game has always been played. The difference this time is that the Republicans have become such sore losers that they're attempting to turn everything into a personal attack on their honor and or integrity.
The last eight years have shown that they have neither.
Remember...keep your eye on the ball dims!
"...as long as it is not an illegal or improper reason..."
I don't think he missed anything. Firing an attorney for failing to act as a political operative would qualify.
And I don't understand why you think that because they can be fired for any reason, discussing the politically partisan reasons that Bush used to fire some of the Bush-appointed US Attorneys mid-term is off limits and shouldn't be investigated.
As a consolation you'll be receiving a free coupon. Fill it out with any handy crayon and return it to your favorite blog. When they get arround to it they'll send you a free doritos cluster COD, to attach to your dittohead campaign bar. Congratulations! No need to thank me, its all part of the service that we provide to all our disturbed posters.
Show me one president who hasn't fired at least a vast majority of the incumbent U.S. attorneys.
And the Marxist thing, show me examples.
The Bushevics also "burrowed" a number of moles in many regulatory agencies, by designating their positions "career" rather than "political." Human poison pills, you might say.
Apparently you still haven't read the article. It clearly states:
Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.
WPE Bush did the exact same thing at the start of his term, contrary to what you claim. The past administration has never been very big on olive branches.
Nobody here is saying that Obama walks on water, except for you, and well, people like you, who seem to have some sort of insight into the minds of people who support Obama. I support Obama, but I don't think that he walks on water, and get this. I disagree with him on lots of things. Unlike republican supporters, who we have seen march in lock step more times than not with Bush in the past regardless of what he did.
The purpose of these firings is so that Obama can put into place people that he thinks are going to do the job of US Attorney. These are republican appointees, and guess what? It doesn't matter. The Constitution (you remember that thing right?) gives POTUS the power to hire and fire these positions at his whim.
What I'm not afraid of is this country ever becoming Marxist. That will never happen. Also, what I'm not afraid of, is that Obama appointees will no doubt hold up the rule of law, which failed to happen many times during the reign of Bush.
You people act like Chenny was watching over the "torture sessions" smiling and producing an evil laugh. NO ONE wants to use those techniques - NO ONE. Sometimes, however, things like this have to be done due to the level of evil that exists in this world. Do you people realize that the people you so adamently defend would CUT YOUR HEAD OFF if they had the chance? Do you even know what is involved in water boarding? The subject is never in any real danger. The mind is simply telling him that he is drowning. It is certainly unpleasant but it isnt life threatening.
It's amazing to me that people are so completely clueless. It's easy to talk about how wrong people are when they have to make extremely difficult decisions. I'm no Bush/Chenny lover - I dont agree with a lot of things that administration did. However, I predict that the Obama/Biden administration will make the B/C administration look like a bunch of geniuses by the time its all said and done. The ability to give a good speech does not make a person qualified to be President.
Any other spin is untrue.
Read the headline again. Hannity falsely compared Obama replacing US Attorneys with Bush's controversial firings.
We were talking about the investigations going on into Bush's firings, which hints at, or even suggests that he did so illegally. I don't believe that he did. That's all that I'm saying here. I don't agree with why he fired his US Attorneys, but he was within his rights, as President to do so. I think investigation time would be more well spent say, looking into torture, or warrantless wiretapping, and or whether or not either of those 2 things are still going on.
I'm not condoning any illegal activities here.
.
How far across the line did the bad faith acts transpire?
You keep telling us this is unprecedented, but the replacing of attorneys only became a precedent with Reagan. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and the left trying to make hay out this is humorous!
What is the point really? There are no political points to be scored here.
AND...the ones who were retained were considered "loyal Bushies" (actual e-mail words) and DID prosecute Democrats for political reasons. Case in point Don Siegelman. And Paul Minor. This is illegal, a miscarriage of justice, and the type of thing done in a police state.
NOW do you get the point????!!!!
"When Carter lost in November of 1980, I resigned," said Brady, who later became president of the National Assn. of Former U.S. Attorneys. "Nobody asked me, but that's the tradition of the office. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and when a new administration comes in, everybody knows you will have a new U.S. attorney."
Apparantly it was ALREADY considered the 'tradition of the office' When Reagan was first elected.
The reason I keep saying it is unprecedented is because it is, you know, UNPRECEDENTED. Yeah. They serve at the pleasure of the president UNLESS he was obstructing justice by stopping investigations like into Renzi OR if he fired them for NOT running politial witchunts. I dont care about political points. I am not a Democrat. I dont LIKE the idea of the justice dept being politicized to the extent the attorneys were fired for not going on witchunts against Dems. THAT is the point. IF that happened it needs addressed even if it was technically legal. A mechanism passed by Congress to stop Obama or any other President of abusing his office that way.
It's OK for NEW PRESIDENTS (of ANY party) to replace many or all of their predissessros US Attourneys. This is almost always done, traditionally, just as a matter of course.
It is HIGHLY UNUSUAL, bordering on IMPROPER to dismiss NINE of YOUR OWN APPOINTED US Attourney's in the middle of a term. Normally 2 or 3 are all that are fired over the course of a 4-8 year term, and then only for obvious, defensible reasons. To fire NINE ALL AT ONCE thus requires some serious explanation (which we never got) because the Executive branch is NOT supposed to use the justice deptartment as a pack of attack dogs to go after their political opponents.
Does that clear things up boys and girls? Any questions?
Clearly, you, Karl, and Alberto have a different interpretation of the meaning of the word 'improper'
FACT 1- Counsels confessed to supplication of more than 34 false affidavits and deliberately deceiving the Court in eToys - the confessions occurred in early 2005.
FACT 2 - Asst US Trustee stipulated the acts were deliberate, rather than inadvertent and concluded that Fraud on the Court was transpiring (this was while only addressing 3 felony violations).
FACT 3 - Less than 10 days after the Asst UST sought to Disgorge one law firm for $1.6 million - the DE DOJ Trial Attorney put in a Stipulation to Settle that gave illegitimate, implied, blanket, immunity and the promise of future willful blindness by the DE DOJ.
FACT 4 - after Laser Haas reported another $100 million in Fraud - the DE Dept of Justice instructed the SEC to BACK OFF from initiating an Official Investigation and successfully petitioned the Court to Strike & Expunge the proof of Perjury & Fraud.
FACT 5 - The Asst UST and The Director of the EOUST then Resigned from the Dept of Justice.
FACT 6 - The WSJ reported on July 25, 2005 - on the Conflicts of Interest.
FACT 7 - the Chief Justice released an Opinion Oct 4, 2005 that ruled that despite the 34 confessed false affidavits - no Perjury was documented.
FACT 8 - After the Director of the EOUST resigned - the removed Region 3 Trustee was PROMOTED to the Post of Acting General Counsel of the EOUST - therefore in charge of investigating her own case - NOTE; there was no official press release of the high profile promotion until after we reported the Conflict of Interest issue in 2008.
FACT 9 - It was also discovered that the DE US Attorney - who had refused to prosecute or investigate the Fraud - had failed to disclose that he was a partner with one of the firms that confessed to false affidavits and deceiving the Court.
FACT 10 - Upon reporting the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Violations to the CA US Attorney - no response was received - HOWEVER - the Los Angeles Times reported the story "Shake-up roils federal prosecutors" - where the Central CA USA walked into a weekly meeting - belittling his staff - disbanded the Public Corruption Unit - and THREATENED career prosecutors to remain silent and not speak to the press about the reasons why.
Finally - the DOJ Get out of Jail Free Card helped more mendacious behavior to spawn - as the party that received the unlawful impunity was also a partner with Tom Petters and Marc Dreier!!!!
Our case
But - Everyone's system of Justice.
Does anyone care that Judges and DOJ officials are overtly, routinely making illegal decisions to benefit Organized Criminal Behaviour?