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 3 of 3)
31. Mary, Mary, Mary. You Bushbots are just unbelievable - both figuratively and in reality. Bush cares nothing about our freedoms. If he did he wouldn't be doing all he can to take them away. But then we know your phone will not be tapped, your e-mails read, you will never need habeus corpus and if they are and you do, you will just pull out your Bushbot card.
lynne at 6:17PM on Mar 17th 2007
32. When Clinton fired all those attorneys, why didn't all the investigating stop?
Are the Republican Congressmen calling for Gonzales resignation because they didn't know about the little ditty that was slipped into the Patriot Act about appointing attorneys without Senate oversight?
lynne at 6:22PM on Mar 17th 2007
33. As for Bush winning the last two times, it just shows us the power of a large group of stupid people......
Hough at 7:14PM on Mar 17th 2007
34. It drives me crazy when people say.. well Clinton did it! You can't use Clinton as an example. I wish people would do their homework.
Bush through Ashcroft accepted the resignation of the 93 attorneys in 2001 when he took office. So he did the same thing. No problem.
The issue is that it is rarely done in midterm and with motivation as suspect as these...like not prosecuting the opposing party in a more timely manner.
At some point, the Bush apologists will have to look at his record and stop whining about a President who has not been in office for seven years.
marjory at 7:59AM on Mar 19th 2007
35. Response to #4 Phyllis Kunz Aren't you putting the cart before the horse! Last time I looked Repubs are blaming Clinton for everything that Georgie is doing wrong, why some of you baboons are even blaming Clinton for invading Iraq. And if you think that Bush is a Hottie, then maybe your leting your libito influence your rational
rrm12 at 10:31AM on Mar 18th 2007
36. So What if Bush fired 8 or 9 prosecutors!! Clinton fired all of them! What is the big deal and why hasn't the media been telling the general public about the Clinton firings, if it offends them so much. Ronald Reagan had it right... " It isn't that liberals are ignorant.... It's just that they know so much that isn't so".
S. Kissel at 5:14PM on Mar 18th 2007
37. Bush tends to bypass congress. Clinton did not. That is the big difference between them. The fired attorneys had excellent ratings and are Republicans. This administration is the worst in years. It is corrupt and the only ones who remain in office are those idiots who are loyal to King George.
Allan Mohl at 5:44PM on Mar 18th 2007
38. Bush knows what is going on in his Justice Department. Gonzales should resign.
allan mohl at 5:42PM on Mar 18th 2007
39. Clinton fired all 93 attorneys to cover up the fact that he really only wanted to get rid of one. The one he wanted gone was the U.S. attorney in Littl Rock. He was investigating the Clintons' involvement with White Water. Clinton just couldn't fire him. That would look bad. He decided to sanction all 93. Now then, the President can fire and hire anyone at any time. Let's see, HUM, 93 vs. 8? What do you think.
Scott at 6:56PM on Mar 18th 2007
40. Bill Clinton is a big, slimey, pink SLUG!
Marie at 7:14PM on Mar 18th 2007
41. The venomous hatred of the left of Bush is so evident in these comments. He is far from perfect, but if this isn't evidence that Clinton got a walk with the media, I don't know what is. Clinton fired 93 attorneys, and it got little coverage and light criticism; Bush fires 8 and all of a sudden there is a HUGE scandal. If the Dems win in '08, I can only hope the Republicans are taking notes from them--criticize everything, investigate everything, and offer NOTHING in the way of solutions or alternatives.
Tim Collard at 9:04PM on Mar 18th 2007
42. Clinton was impeached for all his sins, what he did in the whitehouse was paid in full. anything about him now is moot.
joanne at 9:59PM on Mar 18th 2007
43. Bill Clinton was and still is a pompous jerk. I hold him personally responsible for his in-ations leading to the attack on 9/11 that nearly killed me in the North Tower. Anyone who doesn't feel that his act of inserting cigars in a woman's vagina wasn't that of a depraved sick man can go straight to hell with him.
Ken Summers at 10:09PM on Mar 18th 2007