RSSHillary Upset Over US Attorney Firings – That Sure is the Kettle Calling the Pot Black!
Hillary Clinton is calling for the resignation of the US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over the firing of 7 US Attorneys this past week. The hue and cry from the Democratic side of the aisle is deafening with a willing media giving full voice support to anyone attacking the administration.
But this same media remained mum on the topic when Bill Clinton decided to fire all 93 US Attorneys when he assumed the Presidency under an ethical cloud. And during this period we remember that he always referred to Hillary as his Co-President.
So traditional media, why don’t one of you suck it up and ask the Junior Senator from New York the question on why it was proper for you and your co-President husband to fire ALL the US Attorneys and Bush to fire 7 with cause?
HMMMM……. Now read this editorial from the Wall Street Journal that lays out the case in black and white on the hypocrisy that is Hillary.
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.
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: “All those people are routinely replaced,” he told reporters, “and I have not done anything differently.” In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in Chicago, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was “within 30 days” of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton’s economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint “Friend of Bill” Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to “politicizing” Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons. via the OpinionJournal
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
8 Responses to “Hillary Upset Over US Attorney Firings – That Sure is the Kettle Calling the Pot Black!”
Leave a Reply
Given that your lack of ability to think straight is showing so badly here, why not check the actual FACTS of what you claim to know so much about?
From today’s McClatchy article on this topic:
The Bush administration and its defenders like to point out that President Bush isn’t the first president to fire U.S. attorneys and replace them with loyalists.
While that’s true, the current case is different. Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected.
Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term.
Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term.
“In some instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may have been pleased with the work of the U.S. attorneys, who, after all, they had appointed,” Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, speculated in a 2006 memo outlining Bush’s alternative approach. “In other instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may simply have been unwilling to commit the resources necessary to remove the U.S. attorneys.”
This piece of human filth will never be elected President..
Period!
Would we expect anything different from Hillary?
and to TCinLA: You need to get your facts straight. While mass firings can and do happen, other presidents have and will continue to replace employees as they see fit.
First you miss the point that Hillary is the last person who should be speaking as her hubby not only mass fired 93 US attorneys, but Hillary herself fired the entire travel office so that her buddies could pillage it. It was legal for Bill to do what he did; just as it was legal for Bush to fire 8 employees. It was not morally right for Hillary to do what she did and she’s the last person that should weigh in on Bush.
Yet another comical “outrage” that is so typical (and predictable) by the Dems. The Attorney General serves at the President’s discretion, and the U.S. Attorneys do as well. If Bill and Hill could clean house and fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys, then certainly, Bush’s AG can fire seven. They are so consumed with their Bush-hatred, if the man could walk on water, they would cry, “See, he can’t swim!” Get over it already.
I caught this at opinion journal, and it leaves me wondering about a timeline….was the usa in the hubble case excused within the same time frame as the other 92? If so, it would suggest that 93 usa were removed to cloke the removal of a single ag….it’s all a lil black helicopter for me, and that black helicopter dont hunt…..
Gonzo is gone, that is a fact, i expect his ‘i serve at the pleasure of the president, and while having done nothing wrong, I must step aside, as it has become too much of a distraction for a whitehouse that needs to get soo much done for the american people in the next couple years’.
Ditch the dead wieght and get out in front of this train, or we’re likely to hear way to many words like pleasure, distraction, and the phrase i regretfully…..
You are correct Chris. That is exactly what happened with the firing of ALL 93 under Hill and Bill. If it was mentioned in the media at all at the time, it was nothing more than a one day story. Dems can do whatever they want, and the media gives them a pass. There is a concentrated effort by the Dems (with help from the media) to cast a shadow of corruption over this administration even where none exists, and let’s face it, the Dems invented this brand of dirty politics, and they have perfected it. They are SO much better at it than the Republicans. I have a real problem with this administration’s willingness to knuckle under so easily rather than stand up and fight. Even if they did nothing wrong, it leaves the impression of wrong-doing when they acquiesce to the Dems. It’s as if this administration is acknowledging that they should ask permission from the Dems before doing anything. That is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Nobody here sees the difference between dismissing and replacing all of them at once on your first day in office — and selectively dismissing the attornies that Republican senators and politicos complain about, pretty soon on the heels of them getting good performance evaluations?
I do.
So why not have a president that thinks logically across party lines?
GO OBAMA!