Some Republicans have now been using the talking point that it's no big deal that Bush fired the eight prosecutors at the Justice Department -- because Bill Clinton fired 93 prosecutors when he came into office. This point is completely disingenuous. And the people making it are smart enough to know that it is.
For policy reasons every president replaces all of the prosecutors at the Justice Department in the beginning of their term. George H. W. Bush did, Bill Clinton did and so did George W. Bush. And when George Bush did this in 2001 it was not a scandal or a problem. It was completely normal.
This case is different because he fired the prosecutors for political rather than policy reasons. He was punishing some of them for going after Republican legislators and not going after Democrats before the elections, right or wrong. While this might be legal because the prosecutors serve at the discretion of the president, is it really what you want your president to do?
If Hillary Clinton wins, do you want her firing any prosecutor who goes after corrupt Democrats in the middle of her term? Or coercing her Justice Department to pursue cases against Republicans, whether it's justified or not?
This is a terrible precedent of allowing politics to corrupt the Justice Department. That's why so many Republicans as well as Democrats are furious. Remember almost all of the prosecutors fired were Republicans and originally appointed by the Bush administration. But they had principles and believed in doing their job rather than being hatchet man for Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales.
In a perverse kind of way, it actually gives me faith that we haven't lost all the Republicans in the country. There are still some that have not been tainted by this administration and that still have strong principles left. Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales are certainly not among them.
The Young Turks
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
A Dishonest Republican Talking Point on the Prosecutor Scandal
Posted Mar 15th 2007 3:27PM by Cenk Uygur
Filed under: Scandal, George Bush, Young Turks, Republicans, GOP, Hillary Clinton, U.S. Attorneys
Mo's Video
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- Hereafter on Cho Seung-Hui's Plays
- Jerry Brown on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Mo's Bio
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- Republicans, Independents Make the Difference in Support for Obama on Afghanistan
- Meat for Public Schools Often Rejected by Fast Food Chains
- Salahis Subpoenaed To Appear Before Panel Probing Party Crashing
- Will George Stephanopoulos Go Better With My Omelet?
- $1 Billion Spent on Political Ads in '09
- In a Political Popularity Contest, Hillary Clinton Wins
- Tiger Woods' Transgressions and the Gender Split
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 5)
1. In response to the "didn't Clinton fire 93 US Attorneys?" I agree with your, Republicans please stop with the talking points. Here is the truth. When there is a change in administrations, it is customary for that President to replace all or some of the US Attorneys. Under our Constitution, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. US Attorneys are appointed for 4-year terms--the same length of a Presidential term.
Yes, a President has that right not to reappoint when a US Attorney's term is over. It is however, not customary for a President to replace all the US Attorneys which he appointed in the middle of their term. What is most disturbing these firing took place before elections. These professionals were fired because they refused to indict political opponents. Therefore, one could conclude Bush tried to use his office to affect the elections.
In defense of Clinton, Bush, Sr., appointed all 93 US Attorneys serving at the time of Clinton’s election. Therefore, Clinton had the right not to renew their term. He replaced all of them and rightfully so. Thus, he had the right to appoint new US Attorneys with the advice and consent of Congress. In this case, Bush tried to avoid Senate Confirmation while at the same time applying political pressure. He constantly shows a lack of respect for our order of government. Therefore, there is a big different between Clinton’s action and those of George Bush. There is no comparison.
Cheryl S. Ross at 5:08PM on Mar 15th 2007
2. Why won't you admit that the reason Clinton fired the prosecutors was to save Hillery's behind because
one of them was prosocuting the White-Water fiasco.
wb forrester at 4:28PM on Mar 15th 2007
3. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! You all have her condemned and she isn't even elected yet! Knock it off. Find some real news!
MeriAnn at 7:34PM on Mar 15th 2007
4. I have practised law since 1967. After each election since then, every United States Attorney in the country has submitted his resignation at the start of a new president's term. That is the tradition. The new president will either appoint a new one or maybe reapppoint the existing one. That is a legitimate use of the executive power of appointment. That is different than what this controversy is about. In the middle of his second term, the Bush administration fired United States Attorneys because they were enforcing the criminal law against Republicans! In true Rovarian style they then took a grain of truth, that new presidents replace or reappoint U.S. attorneys at the BEGINING of their terms, and spun it too justify their unethical conduct. This tactic always works with the right wing. They are not smart enough to see the distintion.
Charles Anonymous at 5:01PM on Mar 15th 2007
5. That's really a case of throwing the ole baby out with the bath water, huh? Wow...you mean to say, President Clinton fired 93 prosecutors to get rid of just one? What a clever way to mask his REAL agenda. Who'd a thunk it?
Hillary better really stay on her toes and mind her P's and Q's with knowledgable Right-Wing overseers, like you, out there to keep her in line.
Just keeping doing what you're doing, okay? We'll all thank you for it on the Wednesday after the first Monday in November '08.
Art at 6:48PM on Mar 15th 2007
6. You just keep on believing that and don't forget the Easter Bunny is on the way.
One Big Lump at 6:50PM on Mar 15th 2007
7. You just keep believing that and don't forget the Easter Bunny is also on the way.
One Big Lump at 5:07PM on Mar 15th 2007
8. wb f,
Whitewater was an empty sack. Talk to Ken Starr. The WSJ covered Whitewater obsessively, repubs ran with it for years, it was investigated for years and found meaningless.
However, Carol Lam has been prosecuting the Randy Cunningham case and was tossed after indicting Brent Wilkes for involvement in the same case.
I don't understand how you decide your loyalties in this instance. These people are all Republicans. Do you hear what I'm saying? Carol Lam is a Republican. An (R). A GOPper. On the home team. She's not a democrat/traitor.
Best wishes
lil_turk at 5:29PM on Mar 15th 2007
9. Interesting how people pick and choose their "truths". Cheryl Ross should have said, "Here's how I'll disguise a lie in truth's clothing". It is NOT customary for a President to fire ALL of the US Attorneys. The TRUTH is that only one President has ever done it: Bill Clinton. A better argument could be made that he fired them all to cover up the firing of the one he really wanted to get rid of; the US Attorney in Little Rock. A position he then filled with a former student of his. The TRUTH is that all US Attorneys serve at the will of the President and, although it may not be "customary", it is not without precedent to fire a US Attorney in mid-term. Additionally, there is NO evidence that any of the 8 attorneys were fired for political reasons. Two were fired for what amounts to direct insubordination and they all failed to meet minimum job performance standards established by the President. A grade sheet was developed and those 8 failed to meet the standard. There is nothing in the standards nor in any of the inter-office correspondence to indicate a political motivation to the firings. The failing of the Administration is that the President did not just step up and say, "They serve at my discretion, and I didn't like their performance, so I had them fired. Period!" He has no obligation to give anyone other than those 8 attorneys any explanation what-so-ever.
Clark at 5:36PM on Mar 15th 2007
10. The entire basis for the conclusions in this post are that Bush firings are different from the Clinton firings because they were done for political reasons instead of policy reasons. I have yet, however, to see any news report that give any evidence that the firings were for anything other than policy reasons. The closest I have seen is a report that some Republican lawmakers had contacted some US attorneys to put pressure on them to make prosecutions. This falls well short of the administration acting for political reasons. Unless Uyger can back up his assertions the dishonest tag may fit him better.
Greg at 6:15PM on Mar 15th 2007
11. ARE WE ALL SO STUPID? Can nothing be wrong if you're RIGHT? Excuses for bad behaviour don't make them OK! Ther's no right way to do the wrong thing!
I actually know Republicans who are just as sick of this one-sided stuff as I am. And please, stop trying to blame Bill Clinton for everything! It's not only dumb but extremely tiresome!
Helen Clark at 6:16PM on Mar 15th 2007
12. Forget about the attorneys, Hillary is ripping Obama behind the scenes... Today it's a hit on Obama for being a "registered" Muslim on http://www.solidpolitics.com
Bill at 6:49PM on Mar 15th 2007
13. It's really sick how the press has jumped on this story, because "maybe" their were political reasons for these guys being fired by their boss. They have no evidence of this and I'm sure a real investigation will take place, but that's all for show right? The liberal press, including Mr. Uygur, decide who is guilty and who is not.
Mel at 7:54PM on Mar 15th 2007
14. Its unfortunate that the republicans have said that president clinton fired all of the prosecuters under bush sr.
When a new president comes in, he needs to have people he can trust. The prosecuters under bush sr and clinton were chosen by these presidents to pick new people whom they can trust and have faith in. Bush jr did the same.
One difference is that Karl rove a political advisor to bush sr was involved in the firings. That implacates him along with gonzales that says that the president can fire proffessional prosecuters for political reasons because he or she did not go after their political enemies or were too harsh on their allies.
Yes we have a govt that works for us.
I would like to thank all the voters who voted for this shyster.
pepsistar05 at 9:25PM on Mar 15th 2007
15. A difference without a distinction. It is all POLITICAL. Who is kidding whom?
ED at 12:38AM on Mar 16th 2007