Schumer called it “almost unheard of” for a federal prosecutor with favorable reviews to be fired after a top presidential adviser like Rove received complaints about his performance.
“The more we learn, the more it seems that people at high levels in the White House have been involved in the U.S. attorney purge,” Schumer said Monday.
An inconvenient precedent: Robert Bork in 1998
Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it.
Almost unheard of, Sen. Chuck? Your objection at the time, I think, was unheard of completely.
Here’s Chuck “Fire Gonzales” Schumer on Janet Reno after Waco:
GOP presidential candidate Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah suggested the White House should remove Reno for her role in the Waco matter. But Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, wondered why Republicans focused their blame on Reno, a longtime target of GOP criticism, instead of FBI director Louis Freeh.
The FBI, reversing six years of denials by the Justice Department and the bureau, recently acknowledged that combustible tear gas containers were used in the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.
Reno and Freeh have promised an independent investigation into the discrepancy. Both now say that the potentially flammable canisters were shot at a storm shelter away from the main building, but maintain that the Davidians set fires that killed some 80 members of the religious sect.
Hatch: Justice Department ‘in shambles’
Hatch said on CNN’s “Late Edition” that the Justice Department, which oversees the FBI, is “in a shambles” because of poor management.
In Waco and other inquiries, the department “doesn’t reply with the requests of Congress” and invokes “phony issues of executive privilege,” said Hatch, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.
But Hatch called Freeh the best FBI director he has seen, and said there was strong evidence that the bureau informed the Justice Department in a memo some years ago that military gas canisters were used.
“If that is true,” he said, “either the attorney general has ignored the evidence or is incompetent, or … evidence has been withheld by people within the department.”
Schumer, on ABC’s “This Week,” defended Reno and discouraged Republican calls for hearings.
Schumer: Hearings could bring heat, not light
“I do find there’s sort of a little double standard that Janet Reno should resign but Louis Freeh should not,” Schumer said.
Because of the proportionality.
Neo-Warmonger was on this a month ago.
UPDATE: Here’s “Seeing the Forest” trying on a little prophylaxis
You’re going to hear a story that “Clinton fired 93 prosecutors” when he took office, while this whole prosecutor scandal is about Bush firing only 11.
The fact is that EVERY President changes the US Attorneys when taking office. Bush also did the same thing when he took office. That is different. This has never happened before. THIS scandal is about Bush using the federal prosecutors to only go after Democrats, and to ignore crimes by Republicans.
And here’s the thing. The ones that were fired were let go because they wouldn’t “play ball.” So the question is, what about the ones who were not fired?
It is one more example of how the entire government has been converted into a Party apparatus – as well as working to further the interests of the K-Street/Abramoff corruption machine.[Link mine]
Well, to return to Bork:
[Reno] was not in charge from the beginning. Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it. Just as the best place to hide a body is on a battlefield, the best way to be rid of one potentially troublesome attorney is to fire all of them. The U.S. attorney in Little Rock was replaced by a Clinton protege. The long-running Waco emergency that culminated in the deaths of eighty Branch Davidian men, women, and children again proved that Janet Reno was not in charge in the Justice Department. Webster Hubbell, Hillary’s former law partner in Little Rock and Bill’s man at Justice, coordinated tactics with the White House. The President did not even talk to his attorney general throughout the crisis.
********
From the outset, the White House has repeatedly withheld subpoenaed documents until threatened with contempt. Administration personnel, when questioned, have displayed premature and highly selective Alzheimer’s. The President’s lawyers have asserted frivolous claims of privilege and litigated them to the end. The executive-privilege argument was doomed from the beginning.
Stupid Bush. But just in case you’d forgotten what the face of an honest administration looked like, Bork’s column’s like a stroll down memory hole lane.
Single? Despise Bush? Join The World’s Liberal Dating Service Now!
Because, y’know, what could bring two people together better than a mutual hatred?
Here’s the rub, though.
He wont be called out on it. Evah.
If a Schumer opens his mouth in the forest and no one in the MSM cares to hear it, did it make a sound?
There’s a reason he’s called Chuck the Schmuck.
This is what the democrat party has evolved to. Stand in public and tell a lie that everyone knows is a lie and the press winks and hides their head in the sand. Not one question, what a bunch of liars the press has became themselves.
Anyone that watches or reads and believes anything from the antique MSM is a fool.
You do know that Reno’s firings have nothing to do with the current controversy, right?
Let me recap – Reno dismissed the previous administration’s USAs, a common practice.
Firing USAs because they refused to coordinate with Republican reelection campaigns is, however, unheard of. You see the difference?
The president gets to appoint them and he gets to relieve them (or his representative). senator schumer ought to look at that whole “Tenure of Office Act” thing and see how well that went over.
Moron.
What I see, heet, is that at the time Reno dismissed the previous administration’s USA’s, it was not considered a common practice and had nothing to do with performance evaluations. Clinton had already nominated two people who proved not to be confirmable.
To suggest that that was not a political act is absurd. Moreover, it is a little late to state that they do not serve at the President’s discretion, or that Gonzales ought to be fired when Reno was not. It is even more hypocritical to suggest, as Schumer does, that it is unprecedented to dismiss 8 when you can apparently simply dismiss the whole lot and not be charged with playing politics.
Except that:
So, I think your definition of “common practice” is probably non-standard.
“Let me recap – Reno dismissed the previous administration’s USAs, a common practice. “
This looks like a job for google! Please cite your source to prove that all previous Administrations fired all previous attorneys simultaneously.
If you cannot cite this, then your assertion is just as absurd as Shumers’.
Today’s rhetorical question:
Why are Chuck Schumer’s eyes brown?
Yes, she dismissed EVERY ONE OF THEM. So common, in fact, it had never been done before.
Where did I say this? She fired them all at once while having replacements ready, so what? What was political about it? Do you have any evidence, besides the opinion of your quoted article, that the Clinton’s gained from this action? She even specified that any ongoing investigations shouldn’t be interrupted.
In contrast, the Bush WH coordinated with Republican politicians to fire their own appointees b/c they didn’t turn up the heat on rival Democrats. This is proven.
Really? How many current USAs are Clinton appointees?
A little vocabulary lesson for heet:
You, sir, are an idiot. Just reading your posts lowers my IQ.
Please go away.
Nice try. You asserted that Reno’s actions were a “common practice”. ‘Reno’s actions’ were the simultaneous firing of all existing attorneys. Therefore, in order for this to be a ‘common practice’ this had to have been a common practice. And you have failed to cite one example proving that. See how this works?Instead, you wish others to cough up evidence to disprove your assertion that the recent firings were political in nature.
You made the assertion. You defend it.
You want to argue about the current firings? have at. Don’t try such off the cuff remarks and expect a free pass.
Ah yes. The famous openness and liberal attitude BRD was seeking from Mona is found here in spades! Why oh why won’t anyone debate PW in good faith?!?!
Well, factually, the only evidence offered that this is an “unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations” is Bork’s rather spittle flecked opinion hit piece. So, you first.
I’d also point out that the whole issue will hinge on what is “sudden”. The fact that Bush was slower to fire all the Clinton appointees means what, exactly?
That they weren’t all fired immediately and simultaneously, you fucking idiot.
And if you want us to debate you in good faith and stop calling you an idiot, then stop being such a disingenuous fool.
Incidently, a US Attorney is appointed for a term of four years, so Bush could have replaced all of Clinton’s appointments by now without firing any of them.
Really? Where?
(Anyone want to bet it’s in a “spittle-flecked” editorial somewhere?)
Fuck you, asshole. Sorry you are relegated to the fringe. Get used to it.
At least two of them seem to have been fired for not responding to calls that they investigate alleged election fraud. And that’s partisan, because election fraud only hurts those whom it’s used against.
How does one “debate in good faith” with an asshole like you, heet?
LOL…The little guy heet is caught in an awkward moment of either blatant lying or complete dumbshittedness and he flies off the handle. Classic. Was heet crying when he wrote that? I wonder.
And NO heet. In no way should you be taken seriously. So don’t expect it.
This is your origninal post, heet:
You haven’t backed up a single assertion, and ample evidence has been provided to the contrary, so I think I will see if I can do this projection thing:
Sorry you are relegated to constantly getting your ass kicked. Get used to it.
Hey! That is kind of fun!
Actually Clinton fired all the USAs because he was covering up the fact that he was actually firing one in particular (from Little Rock?) who was investigating him, and he didn’t want it to be too obvious.
Heet,
You forget, you have consistently & systematically destroyed whatever good faith is required in order to debate by randomly appearing & being argumentatively contrary – kind of like little “a†sans the really creepy, anal-retentive, neatly spaced type… though you’ve been here longer than little “aâ€Â. I guess we should just forget all of your other comments & start a new w/ each appearance, right? Another difference is BRD approached asking a question & defending his post, you, well you started responding by attacking first. I know to you that seems the same, but really it isn’t. So play the victim card somewhere else.
heet, until Clinton took office, U.S. Attorneys served until individually replaced, or until they chose to tender their resignations. This meant some got fired a day or two after the new president took office, while others served months or years until replaced, and it was not uncommmon for career DOJ employees to become US Attorneys and homestead in the position. Clinton turned a nominally politically appointed position into an explicitly political position. Nobody had ever fired all 93 at once, but Janet Reno did at WH direction. That’s what means “unprecedented.” Until she did it, it hadn’t been done.
Eh, but what do I know. I only worked at Justice, way back in the way back. You, on the other hand, read at Gleen(s)’ that firing 8 USA’s is unprecedented, so naturally you and Ellers Ellenburg (and Glenn’s laptop with wireless access, Mona) must be in possession of the real truthy truth, even if it is a bit gnostic and unknowable to normal humans, who are restricted by things like “facts,” “memory,” and “experience.” People like you are so impervious to facts, it’s pretty much not even worth trying to discuss anything with you…
Go ahead. Let’s have the next talking point, heet…
Perhaps what is meant is that firing exactly eight USAs has never been done before. Other numbers, certainly, the world record of 93, absolutely, but never before eight.
clearly46 a case what “is” is.
Nuance.
Wow, sure got quiet all of a sudden didn’t it?
The president was in on it? Maybe that’s why it’s called the “executive” branch.
Look, getting into this debate about whether or not Reno should have fired all of the USAs on Day 1 of the Clinton Administration is silly because it’s different. At worst, Reno was jumping the gun and breaking precedent by replacing Republican-appointed USAs prior to the end of their terms. She was replacing them because of who appointed them. She never lied to Congress about her reasons for doing so.
The USAs pushed out by Gonzales were all Bush Administration appointees. They claim that they were fired for “performance reasons”. The evidence emerging now is that they were fired for failing to pursue Democrats prior to elections or for pursuing corrupt Republicans. In either scenario, the Clinton analogy is irrelevant. It certainly doesn’t excuse firing USAs for failing to carry out the political objectives of Karl Rove and then lying in sworn testimony to Congress.
Even the people at TalkLeft agree that it’s not exactly unprecedented to fire US attorneys – or that it’s scandalous to appoint USAs for political reasons.
Being TalkLeft, of course, they try to maximize the possibility of there being a scandal under all this (which is, in fairness, not impossible – but the problem is that nobody knows, at this point).
But the mere fact of firing US Attorneys?
Not unprecedented. Not scandalous.
If someone has some evidence (which is not the same as either “speculation” or “earnest desire it be so”) that the fired USAs were fired because they were investigating Republicans or not investigating Democrats, who respectively should or should not have been investigated if their parties were unknown or reversed, then there’s a scandal.
Does anyone have that evidence? Sure doesn’t look like it.
Branchers fried. Reno lied.
Got it backwards Dan.
Reno lied, Branchers fried.
Sigvald,
Wouldn’t the fact that many of the removed USAs, who are all Republicans, claim that they were removed for political reasons count as evidence? Wouldn’t the fact that the DoJ’s claims that they were removed for performance issues are clearly fraudlent based on recent performace reviews also provide further evidence? Wouldn’t you agree that there’s, at a minimum, enough direct and circumstantial evidence to begin an investigation about whether or not Gonzales and his aides lied to Congress when they claimed that the firings were purely related to performace issues?
And, because I REALLY want it to be! There, finished that for you badger. You know badger, when you say things like “the evidence emerging now” it is really a great idea to AT THE VERY LEAST provide that evidence. To tell you the truth, I don’t know if it’s the same (as Reno’s mass firing) or not, but for some reason, I just ain’t taking your word for it. Help a brother out. Capiche.
– The question is, how much longer are we in the majority going to keep the smallsih, loud mouthed delusionary nutroots in the game by engaging in these silly “fly shit in pepper” non-issue arguments?
Nizel,
I discussed the evidence in my past post. If you’re genuinely curious about the evidence showing that they were removed for political reasons, it can easily be found through http://www.memeoarndum.com and http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com .
I am curious about what evidence you have that the DoJ is telling the truth when they say that they removed the USAs for “performance issues”.
Big Bang hunter,
You’re right, you should just go back to sticking your fingers in your ears and not pretending that you can compete in any sort of war of ideas. Your desire to ignore the beliefs and facts of others is truly a sign of the validity of your own beliefs.
In point of fact, if not truthy-truth, I believe Janet Reno didn’t fire the US Attys, because s/he was nowhere near being nominated for AG yet. Kimba Wood & whatshername were having their innings.
No, the firing came from the WH, or Webb Hubbell.
Cordially…
– When I see what could be remotely called a “war of ideas” I’ll be the first in line. Feckless bullshit scratched up from whole clouth on a daily basis, purely to keep the drumbeat of demonization going for the “out” party’s desperate need – not so much. Everytine Bush, or amyone in the administration scratches his ass your gaggle goes to town with microscope and tweezers in hand. Don’t whine when you’re called on it.
You claimed there was evidence in your last post. And then you pointed generically at two websites instead of at specific locations of your purported evidence.
Apparently, “competing in a war of ideas” constitutes asserting that there is evidence, claiming that the assertion is a “discussion,” and waving around generic links.
Why didn’t you just post a link to Yahoo as your evidence, fercryinnoutloud? That at least would have been funny.
Badger – all heet, and no light.
TW: Maris needed61 to break Ruth’s record… that, and 29 beers, 11 hot dogs, and two blondes.
Whereas: firing USAs because they didn’t fit the Dem’s Bundt-cake mold: completely heard of.
On the one hand, firings motivated by politics. On the other hand, though: firings motivated by EVIL RETHUGLIKKKAN POLITICS!!!1!
Big difference, dudes.
Sorry, I meant: Big difference, dead-ender wingnuts!
McGeHee,
The evidence for the political motivations behind the firings is hardly obscure and could truly be found within a matter of seconds using either of the links I provided.
Here’s some to get you started:
TPM Muckraker Link #1
TPM Muckraker Link #2
TPM Muckraker Link #3
RealCities Link
What I am trying to figure out is why is there all this fuss? The President runs the executive branch. The US Attorneys are his prosecutors, and they serve at his pleasure. So what if he fired them for “performance reasons” (surely he can do that–any boss can). If the deficient “performance” included not carrying out the administration’s policy for going after and prosecuting election fraud, what’s the problem? I can fire my associates for any damn reason I want, politics included. Why is this a scandal?
WT,
Your associates don’t receive their salaries from taxpayers and don’t have an expectation of nonpartisanship and I can guarantee that if you gave misleading or false information to Congress regarding those firings you’d be in the same trouble Gonzales is in now.
Are any of you seriously saying that it’s okay for a President to punish USAs for not prosecuting enough of his political opponents or for investigating his political allies? That’s how things are supposed to be? If President Hillary Clinton’s USAs were used in the same manner and for the same twisted purposes would all of you be so flippant?
<a href=”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258425,00.html” target=”_blank”>
Money quote:
”When the party in power changes hands in the White House, it is expected that the new president will fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as was the case for both Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. President Bush, unlike Clinton and Reagan, did not fire all the attorneys en masse when he took office in 2001, and allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months. All were replaced with his own selections early in his administration, however. It is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job.”
One can assume Bush 41 didn’t continue this practice because the attorneys in place were already of a similar ideological bent.
“If President Hillary Clinton’s USAs were used in the same manner and for the same twisted purposes would all of you be so flippant?”
I seem to remember a little something called Travelgate.
I think what he is saying is they serve at the pleasure of the President. Which means he doesnt have to give a reason. If this is correct then it doesnt really matter if you have a problem with it or if Congress has a problem with it. And frankly, based on the 8 year track record, I fully expect Hillary to do the same thing and more, although I think the IRS might be included with the US Attorneys. Yet another reason not to vote for her. If the justice department goes off the rails and is selectively investigating one party over the other, then let the courts or congress step in. If that was in fact the reason they were fired, then I would suggest grilling the JD on how they determine investigations. Get a little practice in before Hillary starts settling scores. Or do you suppose the outrage will be somewhat muted?
Nope. Badger. No agenda there.
I’m curious , Badger, what evidence do you have that the DOJ is lying.
Then why lie to Congress about the reasons if this is no big deal, eh?
Gonzales will resign. That’s an awful big price to pay for business as usual.
lol.
this link seems to prove that Janet Reno did NOT, in fact, fire 93 prosecutors. Am I missing something?
Badger and/or heet – please review the Tenure of Office Act and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson scenario one more time.
The courts have stated that they will stay out of (obvious) political squabbles, so don’t go there. And congress learned once the folly of this issue. It is worth a headline for a day or two, but no executive – nor any member of congress – will give up the right to replace political appointees for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.
So now it is just politics, though not of the usual sort? Like I said, if everything was on the up and up, then why did Gonzales lie to Congress? Odd, that. Also, I’ve never claimed the courts will do anything at all about the firings. Though “perjury” has a nice sound to it.
Rusty,
Either read the sources and point out why they are wrong or their cited sources fraudulent or sit down. The links may go to sites with agendas, but they clearly cite non-biased sources at length.
Americans will begin to open their eyes to the low class scum known as the Dem Party. Hypocrites All.
Yes, heet.
It is just politics. As in ‘political appointee’. Read that over and find out where congress gets its say in the issue other than an opportunity to grandstand again. And wonder about the case of Pot v Kettle. It is real informative on these matters.
I got a better idea, either bring some direct fucking quotes and links to back up you claims or fuck off. Your links all go to bullshit he said/she said anecdotes and emails and gossip. There isn’t a single link to any testimony by Gonzalez to Congress.
You see, the way it works, if you come on somebody elses site making allegations, YOU bring the evidence to back your shit up. You don’t expect them to do the research to prove your point for you.
And heet:
Then why lie to Congress about the reasons if this is no big deal or about a blow job, eh?
Fixed that for you.
A nice, fact-free meme. So far the only attorney dismissed where that might have been the case was the one Domenici complained about. Three had low ratings, one had a high rating personally but his office was dysfunctional and ineffective. And considering how much outrage has been sputtered about election fraud on the left, why are you so defensive of USA’s who didn’t pursue such allegations?
“If President Hillary Clinton’s USAs were used in the same manner and for the same twisted purposes would all of you be so flippant?”
– Would that be similar to the DNC using Rather, Mapes, and Haywood to plant false documents, and lie blatently through their media pulpit to try to manipulate a presidential election Badgnuts?
– Vote Democratic. They do political skulldugery right. They distance themselves from the perps so they can’t be implicated.
G.M.G.:
You’re incorrect that Iglesias is the only case of this. The Seattle USA believes he was fired and denied a federal judgeship because he declined to pursue a full investigation of the 2004 Washington State elections, after his initial review of the case uncovered nothing. The USA John McKay was personally and inappropriately contacted by Rep. Hastings’ (R-WA) office and pressured to take the case. McKay claims that when he was interviewed my Harriet Miers for a judicial appointment, she made it clear to him that the White House was disappointed in his failure to pursue the case. He was asked to resign his position soon after.
And although there’s only circumstantial evidence at this point, USA Carol Lam was responsible for sending Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) to jail and was pursuing an investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) at the time of her ouster. This follows a similar pattern: In 2002, USA Fred Black of Guam. Shortly after beginning an investigation of Jack Abramoff’s dealings with Superior Court officials in Guam, he was demoted by the Bush Administration. In Nevada, USA Daniel Bogden was investigating Governor Gibbons, another Republican, prior to his removal. There’s a pattern here that demands investigation.
B Moe
I thought only us liberals were deranged enough to drop f-bombs. Gonzales and his Aides claimed either in sworn testimony or in public statements that all of the USAs had been removed for performance issues. On Jan. 18, Gonzales stated, “I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.†The memos released today and discussed in today’s Washington Post show that this statement is false. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html
What a wonderful phrase “performance issues” is when dealing with an at-will political appointee. One who can be hired and fired with no other reason than can the secretary of any cabinet level department.
Reviewed that Andrew Johnson impeachment yet for why the courts refuse to get involved with this or why the protest of a member of congress outside of that district (or a member of congress from the opposite political party) will mean more than two days of headlines or politically more than a fart in a thunderstorm?
Non-issue, and no executive in any state will seriously challenge this, nor will any congressman other than those looking for a sound-bite, because all of their aides serve at political sufferance. As does every political appointee. Congress has no consitutional ground to question these firings so there is nothing for the courts to review.
Amazin’ how you reach for any issue, even non-issues, to work with. For politics, of course, not principle. Yours, I suspect, are the same as Groucho Marx’s character: “If you don’t like those, I can get other ones.”
He was “denied a federal judgeship”?
Oh, I see, he earned a promotion from U.S. Attorney to the federal judiciary, so his failure to get a nomination was a denial? Hmmm… I guess he’ll never get promoted to Vice President now.
McClatchy has broken this story wide open.
In an e-mail dated May 11, 2006, Sampson urged the White House counsel’s office to call him regarding “the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam,” who then the U.S. attorney for southern California. Earlier that morning, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam’s corruption investigation of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., had expanded to include another California Republican, Rep Jerry Lewis.”
Al Maviva:
I’m just saying what USA McKay said. If you’d rather I rephrase my comments to “rejected an application for promotion for failing to act on the inappropriate, partisan, requests of sitting members of Congress” I’d be more than happy to.
Amusing Badger how none of your supposed evidence is actually evidence of an improper motivation for the firings. Certainly all the links about the US atty’s being told of repercussions for their complaints about being fired is not evidence of improper motivations for actually being fired. This bizarro logic should be obvious.
When you find evidence rather than baseless accusation, give us a call.
What a load of hogwash.
This is the FEMA fiasco all over, business as usual, should be no story at all, but Bush appointees standing around with their fingers up their ass while the Democrats spin a scandal out of thin air. This shit has worn me to the point I almost want to see the administration crash and burn, but the repercussions would be too severe. One of the reasons I support people like Guiliani is I can’t see him shuffling around trying to be diplomatic with these trecherous bastards, I want someone in the White House who isn’t afraid to call a snake a snake.
“I mean, that is why we have Special Prosecutors!”
(1) Think he might be a little bitter?
(2) The Attorney General is a political appointee, so politics is in the DoJ right from the start.
(3) I wonder how Bud got his US Attorney position and who he took over from? As per #1, this sounds like sour grapes.