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. 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
3. ...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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. Lisa, please put the caps lock down and take your meds
jake58 at 12:55PM on Mar 16th 2007
9. 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
10. So, why did Kyle Sampson resign?
Steve J. at 1:58PM on Mar 16th 2007
11. Two words describe ALL Lieberal Dimocrats and especially both Clintons. DENIAL & HYPOCRISY!
Steve at 4:52PM on Mar 16th 2007
12. 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
13. 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
14. CLINTON HAD EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD TO GET RID OF EVERY ONE OF OUR ASSHOLES FATHERS APPOINTED U.S. ATTORNEYS AND APPOINT HIS OWN BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS STUPID FUCK WE ARE STUCK WITH NOW, THAT ASSHOLE APPOINTED THE SAME ONES THAT HE IS GETTING RID OF ''ALL BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB BY LOOKING INTO REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION'' AND ALSO WHEN THEY COULD FIND IT, DEMOCRAT CORRUPTION. BIG DIFFERENCE AND IF YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT LITTLE FACT YOU ARE ONE HUGE DUMBASS
DAN at 8:50PM on Mar 16th 2007
15. So many other issue's in our America to be known to all of the American people.How to stop these people who might be terrorist buying up our land.Gas station's, cigarette shop's,rental property, liquor store's,99 cent's store's,auto repair shop's,Doctor's,Nurse's,one of these Dr. said to me the muslin's would cut my head off!!They are very rude and cruel,because these people know they have a hold on America,due to the fact they have million's and million's of dollar's.Isn't this a major problem? Why should anyone be upset over our President firing a few people.People get fired every day from a lot of different type's of job's.I am more concerned about our America being taken over by Terrorist who could be buying up all of our American Land. I THINK THIS IS THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA'S MAJOR PROBLEM. These people hang up sign's to buy rental property every where.(I THINK)this is a {SUPER BIG PROBLEM}!! So,why don't you folk's forget it, they will find another job.They were looking for a job when they found that one. Nothing to be angry about.
Joanna Bolin at 8:53PM on Mar 16th 2007