Chafing against Administrative Initiatives

[AMosely]

I'm curious as to what people think about the documents that were disclosed to the House Judiciary Committee last week during hearings concerning the forced resignations of six U.S. attorneys. The documents show that the White House forced the resignations because they 'chafed against administrative initiatives'. Conversely, several attorneys were singled out as exhibinting 'loyalty to the President and the Attorney General.' It should be pointed out that this time, the White House is scapegoating Harriet Miers - the same woman that Bush nominated to the Supreme Court as an insult to the entire country and its judicial system. The current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, has publicly taken sterile blame for this, but will not step down.

As a side note, I was again fascinated to see even more evidence of every decision being run by Karl Rove's 'shop' - making me even more convinced that the real President is a hybrid of Rove and Cheney. Bush is merely a spokesperson.

I am providing links to the JC's website instead of press accounts, read the documents for yourselves:

House Judiciary Committee's letter to Miers:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/miers030907.pdf

First (and most damning) set of documents:
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdf...sPt1070313.pdf

Other documents found on 'whats new' section of the JC
http://judiciary.house.gov/

[Apophis]

I don't think it's much different than Clinton firing all but one U.S. Attorney when he took office. I just think it's different this time around because this practice seems to be okay when performed by Democrats but somehow turns into a conspiracy when performed by a Republican.

[Diceman]

Did Clinton fire his staff when he took office, or some years down the road? It's my understanding that a lot of administrations clean house when they start out - but what is coming to light now seems to be different in character.

[Apophis]

Well, I don't remember how it all ended up, but I believe Clinton fired all the U.S. Attorneys in an attempt to prevent prosecution of the House Ways and Means Committee chairman. Upon further research, it's believed that he fired the U.S. Attorneys to save himself from the whole Whitewater fiasco.

[Steeler]

Almost all administrations hire all new US attorneys at the start of their first term. Most of these appointments last through the second term, unless one of them resigns and has to be replaced. It is extremely unusual to see selective firings in the middle of a term - that would suggest gross lapses in performance or conduct, which is clearly not the case here. The really damning part here is the evidence that various party members wanted to push these specific attorneys toward politically motivated investigation/prosecution, and those that refused were dismissed.

If you have a record of Clinton firing attorneys mid-term that would also be questionable. But the point is not "Clinton did it." The point is "the President did it, and it was wrong." Too many of this administration's resources have been devoted to converting the US government into a Republican patronage machine.

[USN_Squid]

The US Attorneys are political appointees. They serve at the pleasure of the President. No scandal here.

[Apophis]

Originally Posted by Steeler

Almost all administrations hire all new US attorneys at the start of their first term.

Do you have any references for this? My Googling is showing me that Clinton's firing of all but one U.S. Attorney was quite unusual. So I don't think it's that common to hire "all new" attorneys but certainly to replace some.

[War.mongeR1]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

The US Attorneys are political appointees. They serve at the pleasure of the President. No scandal here.

Exactly true. As soon as the next president get's elected, which might be a democrat, it's going to happen all over again. And there will always be people on either side of the fence screaming conspiracy! If it's a Democrat, then Republicans think somethings fishy, if it's a Republican, then Democrats think it's fishy. This happens with every President. Nothing new.

[Steeler]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

The US Attorneys are political appointees. They serve at the pleasure of the President. No scandal here.

If the firings were politically motivated then they were wrong. Maybe not illegal, but wrong. Here's an example of how one attorney was singled out as not being sufficiently Republican:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssen...l/16897028.htm

Apophis, this editorial is all I could find on short notice regarding systematic firings of US attorneys. McClatchy says that Reagan did it too. If you have some specific link to information about irregularities re: Clinton, I'd be interested to see them, although I don't really think it's relevant to this situation. No matter who does it, firing non-partisan government employees for partisan reason puts party and self over the nation, and it's wrong.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...hington_nation

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by Apophis

Well, I don't remember how it all ended up, but I believe Clinton fired all the U.S. Attorneys in an attempt to prevent prosecution of the House Ways and Means Committee chairman. Upon further research, it's believed that he fired the U.S. Attorneys to save himself from the whole Whitewater fiasco.

Sources, please.

My own research shows that Clinton fired the AGs as one of his first official acts after having been sworn in.

Originally Posted by National Review Online

One of President Clinton’s very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire every United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, who was kept on only because a powerful New Jersey Democrat, Sen. Bill Bradley, specifically requested his retention.

Were the attorneys Clinton fired guilty of misconduct or incompetence? No. As a class they were able (and, it goes without saying, well-connected). Did he shove them aside to thwart corruption investigations into his own party? No. It was just politics, plain and simple.

Clinton fired his AGs in 1993. A special prosecutor wasn't appointed to investigate Whitewater until 1994. Furthermore, it is worth noting that a special prosecutor was appointed to Whitewater on Clinton's specific, personal request.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Because of the allegations made in the New York Times article, the Justice Department opened an investigation into the failed Whitewater deal. At Clinton's request, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed a special prosecutor Robert B. Fiske in 1994 to investigate the legality of the Whitewater transactions.

Of course, there are two ways of reading this fact:

1. Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton did anything wrong, and so had nothing to hide or
2. They wanted any wrong doing to be covered up, and so appointed a friendly prosecutor to do just that.

I make no comment on either of these options. However, it doesn't seem as though Clinton fired his AG staff to make Whitewater go away.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...FjYTRmYTlhNzk=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewa...controversy%29

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by Steeler

If the firings were politically motivated then they were wrong. Maybe not illegal, but wrong.

According to who is it wrong?

They are POLITICAL appointees. They are there to serve the Administration for whom they work. The Pres is well within his rights and duties to relieve someone of their post if they are not serving the Administrations goals.

[Steeler]

It doesn't bother you at all that the President would fire a public attorney, one who is supposed to represent the people of the United States, for not aggressively pursuing his political enemies?

[Kerostasis]

Even if there is evidence against those enemies that the prosecutor is ignoring?

No, that doesn't bother me at all.

[USN_Squid]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You acknowledge, and seem to accept, that it's normal for Presidents to sweep the boards at the beginning of their term. The only reason to do that is to set the team in their favor, politically.

Yet you have a problem with the same motivation for change at a later date? I think your partisan tendencies are inhibiting your objectivity here.

Yes, they serve the public, but the bottom line is that they are political appointees, meaning they serve at the whim of the President.

[TheFatKidDeath]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

According to who is it wrong?

They are POLITICAL appointees. They are there to serve the Administration for whom they work. The Pres is well within his rights and duties to relieve someone of their post if they are not serving the Administrations goals.

They are there to serve the Constitution not the President.