Online Gambling, Online Sportsbooks at Eye on Gambling provides Live Odds Sports News Free Picks Sports Betting and Gambling Odds Online at eog.com - View Single Post - FLASHBACK: Clinton White House Fired All Prosecutors...

dirty · 03-13-07, 11:31 AM

Feinstein Has Short Memory on Prosecutor Firings

Posted Jan 18th 2007 2:40PM by NixGuy
Filed under: President Bush, Dem Agenda, Investigations
US Attorneys, like much of the executive branch, serve at the pleasure of the president. They are not protected by civil service laws. However recently Dianne Feinstein and a quite a few left-leaning Democrats and bloggers have forgotten this, but that's not all they've forgotten.

This NYT Article explains the situation. Quite a few prosecutors have been fired. Their priorities are not the AG's priorities, so he fired them. Cue the indignation on the left, see here, here and this:

TPMmuckraker has been following the administration's mass firing of U.S. attorneys around the country. Seven, possibly eight, prosecutors have left office in the past five weeks, some being forced out by the administration all for unknown reasons. According to Senator Feinstein, the White House has informed her that they will be replacing as many as 10 attorneys with interim appointees.

Note that seven or eight equals "Mass Firings." Please. On that scale what's happening at GM and Ford must equal a holocaust.Andrew McCarthy at the National Review throws just a little bit of logic and rationality into this story being fanned by forced outrage.

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.

Patronage is the chief spoil of electoral war. For a dozen years, Republicans had been in control of the White House, and, therefore of the appointment of all U.S. attorneys. President Clinton, as was his right, wanted his party's own people in. So he got rid of the Republican appointees and replaced them with, predominantly, Democrat appointees (or Republicans and Independents who were acceptable to Democrats).

I will stipulate for the sake of argument that Bush may be firing these fine upstanding attorneys for purely political reasons.

But for me to take this story seriously, everyone pushing this, from Dianne Feinstein on down, must first state for the record that Janet Reno was wrong in 1993 when she fired every US Attorney.

Then, they may be permitted to criticize Gonzalez for firing seven or eight US Attorneys.

03-13-07, 11:31 AM	#2
dirty EOG Consigliere' Join Date: Aug 26, 2005 Location: Jawja Posts: 62,810	Re: FLASHBACK: Clinton White House Fired All Prosecutors... Feinstein Has Short Memory on Prosecutor Firings Posted Jan 18th 2007 2:40PM by NixGuy Filed under: President Bush, Dem Agenda, Investigations US Attorneys, like much of the executive branch, serve at the pleasure of the president. They are not protected by civil service laws. However recently Dianne Feinstein and a quite a few left-leaning Democrats and bloggers have forgotten this, but that's not all they've forgotten. This NYT Article explains the situation. Quite a few prosecutors have been fired. Their priorities are not the AG's priorities, so he fired them. Cue the indignation on the left, see here, here and this: TPMmuckraker has been following the administration's mass firing of U.S. attorneys around the country. Seven, possibly eight, prosecutors have left office in the past five weeks, some being forced out by the administration all for unknown reasons. According to Senator Feinstein, the White House has informed her that they will be replacing as many as 10 attorneys with interim appointees. Note that seven or eight equals "Mass Firings." Please. On that scale what's happening at GM and Ford must equal a holocaust.Andrew McCarthy at the National Review throws just a little bit of logic and rationality into this story being fanned by forced outrage. 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. Patronage is the chief spoil of electoral war. For a dozen years, Republicans had been in control of the White House, and, therefore of the appointment of all U.S. attorneys. President Clinton, as was his right, wanted his party's own people in. So he got rid of the Republican appointees and replaced them with, predominantly, Democrat appointees (or Republicans and Independents who were acceptable to Democrats). I will stipulate for the sake of argument that Bush may be firing these fine upstanding attorneys for purely political reasons. But for me to take this story seriously, everyone pushing this, from Dianne Feinstein on down, must first state for the record that Janet Reno was wrong in 1993 when she fired every US Attorney. Then, they may be permitted to criticize Gonzalez for firing seven or eight US Attorneys.