oh hillary, what short term memory you have..
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 21,573
Likes: 0
oh hillary, what short term memory you have..
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009784
Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.
As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
...
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.
As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
...
CHRISTMASTIME IN IRAQ
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,413
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Just to point out, it's rather standard practice for a president to remove all of the standing AG's and replace them when they enter office. AFAIK, Regan and Bush I did that, as well as the above noted case of Clinton.
So, obviously, the act of firing an AG itself isn't something that's a problem. They work for the executive branch, and can be fired at the discretion of the executive branch (Though, before PATRIOT act, and now currently, they must be approved by a senate hearing). No problem there. The problem arises from the fact that these 8 AGs refused,as they claim, to do special favors for various incumbent republican politicians, and just a short period later (as short as two weeks), they were removed from office. The Executive office claimed it was over performance reasons, but these AGs all had acceptable to outstanding performance reviews. Also, the reasons offered by the executive branch have varied and shifted, making the situation more questionable.
Thus, it's an ethics question. It's certainly unethical (I'm not sure of the specific legal ramifications) if what the AG's claimed happened it true. The republican party does not have the right to use AG's as political tools to investigate their opponents before a mid-term election. I say we investigate under oath what happened, and if nothing happened, move past. But, letting stuff like that happen WITHOUT investigation, in my opinion, a disservice to the american people and government.
So, obviously, the act of firing an AG itself isn't something that's a problem. They work for the executive branch, and can be fired at the discretion of the executive branch (Though, before PATRIOT act, and now currently, they must be approved by a senate hearing). No problem there. The problem arises from the fact that these 8 AGs refused,as they claim, to do special favors for various incumbent republican politicians, and just a short period later (as short as two weeks), they were removed from office. The Executive office claimed it was over performance reasons, but these AGs all had acceptable to outstanding performance reviews. Also, the reasons offered by the executive branch have varied and shifted, making the situation more questionable.
Thus, it's an ethics question. It's certainly unethical (I'm not sure of the specific legal ramifications) if what the AG's claimed happened it true. The republican party does not have the right to use AG's as political tools to investigate their opponents before a mid-term election. I say we investigate under oath what happened, and if nothing happened, move past. But, letting stuff like that happen WITHOUT investigation, in my opinion, a disservice to the american people and government.
Push to shock!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
From: Palo Alto, CA
The one key difference here is that eight of the fired U.S. attorneys were Bush's appointees, whereas the 93 fired by Clinton were appointees of Bush Sr. Clinton (and Bush and Reagan and presidents before) were turning over staff from a previous administration, whereas the current firings are too precise to be simply turning over staff.