The issue of whether President Bush should have fired eight U.S. Attorneys ought to turn on the merits of each decision. I undertook a preliminary analysis of the issue (the facts are not all in yet) here on Power Line.
The fact that President Clinton replaced nearly all of the U.S. Attorneys when he took office does not tell us anything about the merits of President Bush's decision to replace a handful of them in mid-term. However, it's false to claim that Clinton's action was "completely normal." In fact, what Clinton did was unprecedented. As the Wall Street Journal notes, previous presidents had retained holdovers and only replaced them gradually. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
In fact, the New York Times editorial page blasted Clinton for his departure from past precedent. Here is what the Times said on March 26, 1993:
"Any hope that the Clinton Administration would operate a Justice Department free of political taint -- or even the appearance of political taint -- grew dim yesterday when the White House confirmed that it would dismiss the U.S. Attorney investigating one of its chief Congressional allies.
When Attorney General Janet Reno first announced the blanket dismissal of about 70 United States Attorneys who are Bush Administration holdovers, her aides said she might exempt those who needed to wrap up significant investigations. But yesterday the White House. . .removed most of that fig leaf on an exception. President Clinton's spokesman, George Stephanopoulos, said that some top prosecutors who are tied up in trials would be allowed to complete them, but most others would have to go. Their investigations would be continued by lower-ranking staff attorneys.
Those booted out would include U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens of the District of Columbia who. . ."is not in the middle of a trial." But Mr. Stephens is in the middle of an investigation of irregularities in the House of Representatives and a detailed financial auditing of one of the most powerful House Democrats, Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Stephens, who is known to enjoy cases with political overtones, is just the lawyer to credibly investigate Congressional Democrats, but the Clinton Justice Department won't be waiting for his recommendation for or against prosecution.
Traditionally, Attorneys are not turned out in a sweep like other Presidential appointees. To avoid the appearance of political justice, they are retained until the President is ready to exercise his undoubted right to replace them. (emphasis added)
The unseemly rush to clean out Republican investigators even before the Administration has filled most top slots at Justice looks awful in an area where appearances count heavily. Until the White House gets its fingerprints off the department, there can be no start on the promised regime of justice above politics at Justice."
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 3)
1. Take a better look at this so-called comparison between the Clinton DoJ and the Bush/Rove/Gonzalez DoJ. It is customary to require the resignation of all presidential appointees from the previous administration. Just ask Linda Tripp. The difference here is that this clutch of fired prosecutors were let go for cause despite their glowing performance reviews. In their case, there was a pattern displayed by DoJ/White House. The cause in their cases were mostly the fact that they were following the law in prosecuting Republican "friends" of the Bush White House. In the Clinton DoJ, there were really only two remarkable cases of firing for cause: one attorney tried to choke a reporter and another attorney bit a woman. To put the initial "blame" on Harriet Meiers, a woman, who isn't even around the scene anymore is absurd and unjust and really, really shows the true colors of this administration.
mageen at 9:08AM on Mar 16th 2007
2. This is outragious! The media has turned these firings into a full blown investigation of President Bush -- not just a mere article stating that they don't agree with his firings. They do not care that it is his absolute right (as stated in the article of the Clinton firings) to replace anyone that he wants. They want Karl Rove's head and ultimately President Bush's head. The hypocrisy in the media is staggering. I guess if Bush fired them all (like Clinton)it would have been better. There are no guarantees in the real world about retaining your job. Then, why is there such a twisted look at these firings. They can always go to EEOC to plead their case. And guess what? Then the light of scrutiny will be shined on their performance as a U.S. Attorney and not played out in the media for the enjoyment of the Bush haters.
glenbliss at 8:22PM on Mar 17th 2007
3. This is just one more example of the obfuscation and smoke screens and mirrors used by this Administration to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. Their tactics have been, and continue to be, consistently self-interested and ruthless. As evidence, review their handling of pre-war intelligence, Colin Powell, Valerie Plame, George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, domestic spying, Abu Graihb, Walter Reed, the Iraq debacle, etc...
President Bush likes to tout himself as the Great Decision Maker when it suits him ("Mission Accomplished"), but runs for cover, distracts, denies and deceives to avoid culpability whenever his dirty tricks come to light.
Bush has a tendency to act like a little boy who, having been caught victimizing other children, points out that others have done the same thing. "How come I'm getting in trouble?", he decries, "Not fair!"
This kind of blaming, justifying and avoiding prevents him from learning from his mistakes, hence, he keeps making the same mistakes over and over again, and we are all damned to deal with the aftermath .
This is just more of the same from an incurably self-absorbed, corrupt and misguided regime.
Art at 1:32PM on Mar 19th 2007
4. Clinton was tough and so his his wife, Hillary, spreading rumors that Obama was raised a Muslim: http://www.solidpolitics.com
Bill at 10:07AM on Mar 16th 2007
5. Give us all a break. Whether cause or not, it is the President's undoubted right to replace them. In this case, the media has collective amnesia about how ugly the Clinton Administration appeared and just cleaned house (a "clean sweep" per Janet Reno). There was barely a cry from the media back then. This is just another one of the double standards that applies to Republicans, who are repeatedly questioned and assumed guilty, whereas Democrats (especially liberal Dems) are given a pass to do what they please.
As for the pathetic remark that these fired judges are investigating Republican allegedly of wrong-doing, provide solid evidence of the same. If this were the case, it would appear that the DoJ is only interested in investigating and charging Republicans, a true political taint if there ever was one.
TR at 1:42PM on Mar 16th 2007
6. ...the Bush administration singled out some of its own nominees because they chafed at the president's priorities and Republican efforts to influence political corruption investigations" -- from March 16 AP story. What's different about Bush? He fired his own appointees, for one thing. What were the reasons for the alleged "poor perfomance"? It it was failing to help Rs win elections, as it appears, that is a goddamned outrage, sir, no matter how stupidly you try to spin it.
David Scott at 10:58AM on Mar 16th 2007
7. It seems to me that Bush-Bashers blame President Bush for every damn thing that Clinton did which is obvious and transparent to anyone with a brain. My blood boils when I hear some diss our great president for Clinton's freaking failure.
And my blood boils when I see President Bush who is a hottie.
Phyllis Kunz
Phyllis Kunz at 11:19AM on Mar 16th 2007
8. U.S. Attorney’s are political appointees much like Ambassadors. I believe their might be a “slight” bit of political hypocrisy employed in this case of moral outrage since:
In February 1993 President Clinton (the Democrats) fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys who had been appointed by George Bush. One of them was Stephens, who was then U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and developing a case against House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski -- a pivotal Clinton ally.
Bob Rogan at 11:27AM on Mar 16th 2007
9. WHY IS IT WHEN THE REPUBLICANS GET CAUGHT WITH THEIR HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR THEY ALWAYS POINT THE FINGER AT SOMEONE ELSE? STAND-UP YOU COWARDS TAKE THE HIT! YOU ALL HAVE BASTARDIZED THIS COUNTRY, NOW IT IS TIME TO PAY FOR ALL YOUR GREED AND CONTINUED POOR LEADERSHIP! YOU ALL MAKE ME SICK!
Lisa at 12:10PM on Mar 16th 2007
10. look bush got cot up again in his B.S. Clinton followed Due PROCESS.. Getting them confirmed threw Congress... Bush tried BUT FAILED to sneak policy into patriots act to allow him to replace without confirming them... When will you False christians learn lieing and trying to decieve never works you guys should be ashame as I believe god is of you.. Joseph
joseph at 12:10PM on Mar 16th 2007
11. Lisa, please put the caps lock down and take your meds
jake58 at 12:55PM on Mar 16th 2007
12. So, why did Kyle Sampson resign?
Steve J. at 1:58PM on Mar 16th 2007
13. Two words describe ALL Lieberal Dimocrats and especially both Clintons. DENIAL & HYPOCRISY!
Steve at 4:52PM on Mar 16th 2007
14. Here is a news flash for the conservatives on here: Bill Clinton is not president annymore! Let's all say it together....
The truth is, Gonzales' head is on the chopping block becasue he lied to Congress abou the firing of the attorneys..and George Bush hired him so it is his problem and not Clinton's..why is it when Republicans lie they get a wink and a nod from their fellow conservatives..when Dems lie you wag your finger...be adults and admit it...Gonzales f-ed up..
sdave7596 at 6:13PM on Mar 16th 2007
15. Folks; Please remember that our children see and react to their leaders, not always in a positive way. President Clinton made decisions which were only to his liking, and not to help our country. Now President Bush is doing what he believes is best, not always to everyone's approval, but I believe he (Bush) has always had our rights, and freedoms first and foremost on his mind. Remember... Believe not all that you hear, and think about our decisions as well the decisions made by our leaders. If you don't vote, please don't swear, and make comments that only degrade yourself. Eight versus ninety-three??
Mary M, at 6:52PM on Mar 16th 2007