1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

US Attorneys 86'ed.

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Fenian_Bastard, Mar 10, 2007.

  1. Wow, I'm kinda surprised to see Domenici wrapped up in all this ... I haven't been following New Mexico politics lately but I always understood Pete to be a bridge-building, bi-partisan guy much like McCain and Bayh in Ind. ... though now it looks as that might have been just because state Democrats had more power back then.
     
  2. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    So a guy doesn't do his job and then gets fired. Sounds about right to me. Clinton comes into office and fires every single US attorney (the one in Little Rock was closing in on Whitewater) and the left makes not a peep. Bush fires seven during the seventh year of his presidency and everyone's up in arms.

    Can you say "double standard"? Sure ya' can.
     
  3. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Not a valid comparison at all. When the WH changes hands, every U.S. Attorney (with a few exceptions) is either fired or their resignation is demanded. USA is a political appointment and Reno "fired" them so the Clinton WH could put Dems in those roles. Bush did something similiar to the Clinton USA's when he took over.

    Had this WH simply said "U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and we chose to make some changes. However, these changes do not reflect on the job that the outgoing U.S. Attorneys did," this probably would have never become an issue. But the WH said that the firings were performance-related, so the fired USA's felt like they had to defend themselves.
     
  4. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    That's absolutely not true. Bill Clinton was the first prez ever to fire all the the US Attorneys when he came into office. It was an act unprecedented.
     
  5. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Are you actually saying that U.S. Attorneys carry over between administrations of different parties?
     
  6. Wow.
    The "one in Little Rock was closing in on Whitewater."
    Complete bullshit.
    And people are going to get fired over this.
    And to elide neatly over the fact that all these people had superior performance reviews in the past few months, and that Rove's pool-boy got the job in Arkansas, and the fact that DiIulio told us six years ago that "everything in this WH is run by the political arm." That's some serious talking-points right there.
     
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Wasn't this all covered by Marbury vs. Madison?

    Seriously, this is sickening. I hope this blows up and people give it the outrage it deserves. Old_Tony, sorry there isn't an argument on earth that excuses abuses of power and acts of cronyism designed to bring about miscarriages of justice. It's disgusting and it's criminal for elected officials and appointees to act that way.
     
  8. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    And yet just a little while ago the argument was that when Clinton fired them all -- not just seven -- it perfectly acceptable to think that the president gets to have his guys in there. When Bush's administration fires seven, it's cronyism. When Clinton fires 93, it's just peachy.
     
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    No offense, but it's a dumb argument. First off, I didn't say a word about Bill Clinton. You did.

    And if you have evidence of Clinton having fired Justice Department attorneys because they refused to use the justice system to indict his political enemies, using job performance issues that didn't exist as the reason for the firings, I am 100 percent with you. Show me that having happened and my outrage will be equally as great.

    But otherwise, you can't turn this into a Bill Clinton is the devil argument. He has nothing to do with it. Focus on the link that started the thread and let me know how you feel about that kind of behavior--from ANY group of politicians.
     
  10. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    Bill Clinton is always the Devil ...
    A level 99, I believe, is never hired or fired. The jobs are political appointments and those who serve, do so at the pleasure of the President. They can be replaced at anytime for any reason.
    But in these cases, it causes blowback because most 99s aren't replaced mid-term.
    Secondly, at least one of the US Attorneys let go was a loyal Republican being groomed for a Senate run.
    As noted on other threads, it usually isn't the act, but the appearance and because of that the whole mess stinks. Plus, it was assumed that the US attorneys would keep quiet since, you know, they were threatened by the Administration, but now they are talking and people will fall. Hard.
     
  11. How does Karl Rove, a political hatchet, get hiring and firing over DOJ employees anyway, in any WH not run by vicious incompetents, that is?

    UPDATE -- McClatchy, still kicking ass, supplies a piece of the explanation.
    http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16878479.htm
     
  12. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    tony, I'm going to say this as nicely as I can . . .

    You're a goddamn liar.

    "The U.S. Attorney is appointed by and serves at the discretion of the President of the United States for a term of four years, with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate."

    Clinton fired NO ONE.

    In January 1993 their term was finished . . . just as George H.W. Bush's was.

    Or are you going to accuse Clinton of "firing" Bush41, too?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page