Clinton Two faced

[Seahawks]

Amazing how some of the 93 her husband let go were ones prosecuting the White Water dealings. guess the Dems shit don't stink.

 

 

DES MOINES, Iowa - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday dismissed any comparison between the firing last fall of eight U.S. attorneys with the replacement of 93 U.S. attorneys when her husband became president in 1993

[archenemy]

I believe it is normal for incoming presidents to replace U.S. attorneys. The eight who were fired were for a different reason, no?

Maybe Mattp can help us out here--how does this process normally work (or at least, how is it supposed to work and why?).

[jon]

It's standard protocol for an incoming president to replace all the attorneys from the previous administration.

[archenemy]

And there ya have it.

[selkirk]

Have close friends who work for the local US. Attorney's office... and yes, it's completely normal to replace all the US Attorneys when a president comes in. Hell, last time the local US attorney stepped down after the election in November even before Bush took office, and an Interim served until Bush appointed a new one who was then confirmed by the Senate/Congress. To my knowledge all 93 were replaced when Clinton came in, and all 93 were replaced when Bush came in the first time.

 

Part of the initial suggestion to fire some US Attorneys that came from Harriet Miers was to fire all 93 of them and bring on new ones. (This would actually have been much less fishy or controversial than only firing 8). Gonzalez decided this would be too much of a dissruption and didn't want to replace them all.

 

What makes this case different than a new Pres. is that a select handful were fired. The administration lied about why (especially locally performance was not an issue.).... again.... and several of the US attorneys were linked for either not vigorously pursuing election issues (fraud and or campaign finance) against democrats, or were actively pursuing election issues against republicans. The few things I have heard about the Local US attorney, indicate that he was acting in the best interests of justice, and the best interests of the local US Attorneys office, but he didn't necessarily kow tow to the Republican Party line.

 

The other fishy bit is that in all previous cases when a US attorney was asked to leave or resigned, the local US Court appointed an Interim US attorney to serve until the President appointed one who then had to be cleared by Congressional and Senate hearings. The Interim USA's were limited to only serving for 180 days. This setup was to guarantee someone whom the local courts knew, trusted and could work with was in place to continue the programs that were already in place and/or being developed. In other words to provide minimal disruption during the Interm.

 

Thanks to some wording burried in the last update to the Patriot act the Administration can now appoint an Interim USA directly (who doesn't have to be screened by Congress/Senate), not so bad or odd by itself. However, the time limit on how long an Interim USA can serve was also removed. This combination allows the Administration to bypass Senate hearings, and appoint anyone they want to as an Interim USA, and leave them there for as long as they like. Anybody else see a cronyism loophole that could be abused by both Dems and Republican's?

 

It's f-ing sleazy is what is. Can you honestly tell me that a lawyer who has no significant credentials except that he was Karl Rove's legal advisor is sufficiently qualified to run a US Attorney's office? That's one of the wankers who was in line to be appointed.

[archenemy]

Seems to me that Seahawk may be a "Newsbusters" fan.

 

Where is the link to your article, Sea?

[Brianmoore]

Patriot act

 

Ah the Patriot act. Now there is a smart idea! Who's idea was that anyway?

[Seahawks]

I beleive the Pres can Hire and fire Attoney's when ever he wants. Has the consitution changed? Shall I dig up the info on Clinton firing attoney's working on the WhiteWater scandal??

 

Nothing new here. Just Dems little mad some of there boys got let go.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Seahawks

[archenemy]

No, that's okay. Everyone here is capable of googling the info.

 

So how is Clinton two-faced over this issue?

[Seahawks]

No, that's okay. Everyone here is capable of googling the info.

 

So how is Clinton two-faced over this issue?

 

The Kettle wants to call the pot black.

[archenemy]

I want to know what you were trying to say with your post.

[selkirk]

Huh?

 

And, yes, All USA's serve at the pleasure of the president. However it's looking like he's out of the loop on this one. To my knowledge it's all come from his council and advisors and bypassed Bush completely.

 

Are you referring to USA's who were working on Whitewater prior to Clinton being elected? Who were appointed by a Republican Pres? Of course they were let go. Pretty much every political appointment roll's over with every new president. It has nothing to do with the work they were doing under the old Administration.

 

Mad that some of the Dem's boy's got let go? They were all Republican appointee's. For the most part they were more interested in justice and impartiality than in the toeing the party line.

 

Which is as it should be. USA's aren't just representing the Pres. but the justice branch as well. If they aren't capable of acting without political pressure than the credibility of the office is destroyed which hurts everyone. Once they are appointed it's expected that to some degree they'll act independantly and impartially. Just like Supreme Court nominee's. They shouldn't be bowing to political pressure, but are there to enforce the laws on the books.

 

The issues with Gonzales at the moment boil down to two possibilities. Either he lied before Congress, in which case he should be tossed. Or he didn't know enough about what was going on in his own organization that he didn't know the truth. In which case he's an ineffectual administrator and should be tossed.

 

Let's put it this way, my highly democratic friends are missing the days of John Ashcroft at the moment. He was a putz, but he was at least forthright, honest, and a reasonably good administrator. What's it say to you when Dem's are missing a religious right republican?

[archenemy]

Good points, thanks!

[cj001f]

so thanks to the Patriot act the Pres can appoint Attorneys without Senate confirmation.

 

Good thing the evil Clinton didn't have that capability.

[selkirk]

And neither should the next democratic president whomever and whenever they should be.

[foraker]

All evils of the current administration are forgiveable (or, at least, ignorable) as long as you work Clinton's name into your argument. It doesn't matter then that your administration promised to bring 'honor and dignity' back to the White House. I think that's the point he's trying to make.

[archenemy]

I am not sure why anyone would think that discarding our checks and balances system would be a move in the right direction. I would be interested to hear the "other side" on this one.

[Brianmoore]

I want to know what you were trying to say with your post.

 

I am going to have to agree with archenemy. Seahawks is having a hard time presenting his ideas in a straight forward sentence.

 

[archenemy]

All evils of the current administration are forgiveable (or, at least, ignorable) as long as you work Clinton's name into your argument. It doesn't matter then that your administration promised to bring 'honor and dignity' back to the White House. I think that's the point he's trying to make.

Ah ha.

Also, he needs an interpreter.

[Seahawks]

Point is simple. Seems the DEM stupid level in here is high. Both Parties do acts that benifit there own party. For the Dems to scream about this when they do there own shit is just a bunch of posturing for the white house in 2008.

 

Take off your dem fog glasses.

[archenemy]

I'm not a registered Democrat, so take your fuckup glasses off asshole.

[chucK]

Was Whitewater even being prosecuted before Clinton came in office?

 

The prez can fire any of these attorneys he wants to, the catch here is that they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to fire attorneys for political reasons then tell congress that they were firing them for performance reasons. Congress just called bullshit on that and is making them look bad for it.

 

Sounds good to me. Isn't this the "accountability" administration?

 

Maybe all this investigating will actually turn up some places where justice was obstructed (like firing Lam while cronies of Duke Cunningham were being investigated, or conversely promoting the guy investigating the Abramof stuff to a judge so the case could go cold).

 

[StevenSeagal]

Point is simple. Seems the DEM stupid level in here is high. Both Parties do acts that benifit there own party. For the Dems to scream about this when they do there own shit is just a bunch of posturing for the white house in 2008.

 

 

So if these "acts that benefit their own party" (corrected for spelling errors) are unethical, no one in either party has a right to complain about it? Which makes each party accountable to whom?

 

Is it cool then if Bush gets a BJ from that intern he's been eyeing?

 

 

 

[archenemy]

I think we'd all be better off if SOMEONE would give the uptight jerk a bj. Quick.

[chris]

Point is simple. Seems the DEM stupid level in here is high. Both Parties do acts that benifit there own party. For the Dems to scream about this when they do there own shit is just a bunch of posturing for the white house in 2008.

 

Take off your dem fog glasses.

 

Actually, to my knowledge the Clinton Administration never "let go" a US Attorney midway through either of President Clinton's terms. Sea, please cite any sources that contradict me - I'd like to know more.