Scooter Libby found guilty.

It is, in my opinion, that after appointment, USA's should be apolitical. Maybe you disagree with me on that point and the attorneys are political hacks.. I'll quote Bob Dole (1993) when he spoke about Clinton's pro forma change of all 93 USAs: "The American people deserve a Justice Department that takes a back seat to politics and one that functions efficiently."
Click to expand...

I really don't understand how one can completely divorce politics form a political appointment, cause thats what this position is. Every single person who took this job understands this.

Personally, I agree with you that justice should trump politics, but I'm not going to stand in the way of something that the constitution allows, distasteful or not. This of course assumes that these people were dumped for political reasons, which I don't believe. In fact its on record that 3 of these attorneys had complaints from both republicans and democrats regarding their performance. The rules are the rules for a reason, and we don't get to change them when they don't go our way.
 
His actual full name is William Jefferson Blythe Clinton just as George Herbert Walker Bush is George Herbert Walker Bush.
Click to expand...

No, George H.W. Bush's birth certificate says George Herbert Walker Bush. Same as on legal documents.

For Clinton, on legal documents* his name is William Jefferson Clinton once he changed his name. I think that and whitehouse.gov easily trumps the sources you cited.

* No shortage of those
 
The rules are the rules for a reason, and we don't get to change them when they don't go our way.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. "The idea that Presidents have an unfettered right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time and for any reason is the precise opposite of what Republicans were arguing in 1993"

;)
 
Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys = 93. Outcry of illegality = 0

Bush firings of U.S. attorneys = 8. Outcry of illegality = immeasurably shrill.

If Hillary or Obama is elected to the presidency in 2008; will s/he be held to the same standard the democrats are trying to establish for Bush? (Excuse me while I fall off my chair in laughter)
.
.
.
.
Will Charles "Chuck" Schumer tell her/him that they are breaking the law and call for Senate investigations? (Be right back. Need to wipe my eyes so I can see the screen.)
.
.
.
.
Will the democrats have the U.S. attorneys fired by him/her before a committee to testify about their firings?

Don't hold your breath unless you look absolutely smashing in blue!
 
No, George H.W. Bush's birth certificate says George Herbert Walker Bush. Same as on legal documents.
Click to expand...

Clinton's birth certificate says William Jefferson Blythe III. I believe that he "took" his stepfather's name at 14 as a usage, not a legal change through a petition to a court of law; unless you have evidence to the contrary. I would be happy to view whatever you have on that.

For Clinton, on legal documents* his name is William Jefferson Clinton once he changed his name. I think that and whitehouse.gov easily trumps the sources you cited.
Click to expand...

I sign some legal documents "James Peel" but on others I sign it "Jim Peel". Both are legally binding as they are both in my hand. Just because I am known to all who know me as "Jim" does not mean that I had my name legally changed to "Jim". My legal name is "James".

I am sure that William Clinton also signed some documents "Bill Clinton" in his time but that doesn't make his legal name "Bill".

You could call me James "Jim" Peel and by virtue of that I could also call Bill Clinton William Jefferson "Blythe" "Bill" Clinton and be perfectly correct.

My mother remarried after my father's death to a nam named "Mulevich" If I was as enamored of him as Bill Blythe was of his stepfather I might have started calling myself James Mulevich. In relity, my name would be James Peel Mulevich. Just because I call myself Mulevich does nothing to change my true name -- the one on my birth certificate.

If his change of name was NOT a legal court recorded change, then his true name is William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
 
Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys = 93. Outcry of illegality = 0

Bush firings of U.S. attorneys = 8. Outcry of illegality = immeasurably shrill
Click to expand...

Absolute apples & oranges - both sides agree on that, including John Sununu...is Mr. Sununu wrong?

At the BEGINNING of an administration, all POTUSes clean house. Very VERY different thing to selectively fire those who are not pursuing your political opponents in contravention of their own ethics and policies, (which DAs by the way are 100% evaluated as doing a great job), during the MIDDLE of an administation. Red herring and I think you know it.
 
According to what I have read on this subject they were fired for cause.

Also, the U.S. attorneys serve at the behest and pleasure of the president and can be terminated at any time for any reason -- including no reason at all.

No red herring here.
 
Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys = 93. Outcry of illegality = 0

Bush firings of U.S. attorneys = 8. Outcry of illegality = immeasurably shrill.
Click to expand...

Wow. Where to begin.

First of all, in 1993, when clinton fired 93 attorneys, there WAS republican outcry: Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, Rush Limbaugh, Washington Time editorial, Paul Gigot.. do a google search on the terms ["march massacre" 1993]

Second, you skipped 2002: Bush firings of US attorneys = 93 Outcry = 0

Third, "immeasurably shrill"? Take a look at the last six years... democrats have been investigated by the US Attorneys 7 times more frequently than the republicans. Guess who has had more convictions? I'll quote the republicans back in 2001: "you lost, deal with it"

Yes, there is going to be some kind of political context, since the president generally appoints USAs of his own party. However, once appointed, there should not be micro-management: sure the exec branch can ask for certain general themes (immigration, opposing party corruption, etc) but the primary duty of a USA is to serve justice.
 
I believe that he "took" his stepfather's name at 14 as a usage, not a legal change through a petition to a court of law; unless you have evidence to the contrary. I would be happy to view whatever you have on that.
Click to expand...

So you are not even certain?

I wasn't referring to his legal signature, I was referring to the defendant name in a lawsuit on the legal documents. They tend to get that exactly right.
 
According to what I have read on this subject they were fired for cause.
Click to expand...

And that is a shame. It is what Bush referred to in his speech the other day about how this bubbled to the surface this way. When you get glowing reviews time after time and then are asked to resign and told it is performance related, it is a shame. Fredo screwed up when he said he would never fire a USA for political reasons.

There wouldn't be a problem except that there are changing time lines, denial of responsibility, refusal to discuss this under oath. Congress has a right to ensure that there is some distance between the USAs and politics (yes stage, there is some, but you can try and minimize that).. that's why appointees need congressional approval.

[I was very heartened to see congress take back that power from the patriot act. Very happy to see a non-partisan vote. Very happy to see them stepping back up to the plate and not rolling over like a dog getting scratched on its belly everytime the administration wants something. The BEST thing for this country is to have exec and leg branches be of different parties. (I don't care much for which party has which branch)]
 
I couldn't agree more. "The idea that Presidents have an unfettered right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time and for any reason is the precise opposite of what Republicans were arguing in 1993"
Click to expand...

This makes the assumption that I care what republicans do or don't do. I have no problem with Clinton cleaning house because the constitution allows him to do it. I have no problem with Bush firing 8 because hte constitution allows him to do it.

BOTH PARTIES are making a political issue out of nothing, then and now. Though I'm inclined to say its far worse now because the republicans did nothing more than grumble back in 93'.


At the BEGINNING of an administration, all POTUSes clean house. Very VERY different thing to selectively fire those who are not pursuing your political opponents in contravention of their own ethics and policies, (which DAs by the way are 100% evaluated as doing a great job), during the MIDDLE of an administation. Red herring and I think you know it.
Click to expand...


What rock did you crawl out from under? Bush can fire these people for political reasons. Period. He can and its perfectly legal. Get over it. That said, at least 3 of these 8 had serious performance problems pointed out by both republicans AND DEMOCRATS. Feinstein herself sent a letter to Gonzales regarding the conduct of the USA in california for not prosecuting illegal aliens. One of the other attorneys wouldn't prosecute pot cases unless the defendant was caught with over 500 pounds. This is simply ridiculous.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter whether its in the middle of an administration, it doesn't matter whether its for political reasons. As long as Bush didn't can these people for race, sex, et al, everything he did is legal. Period. End of story.
 
BOTH PARTIES are making a political issue out of nothing, then and now. Though I'm inclined to say its far worse now because the republicans did nothing more than grumble back in 93'.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. I will add on the REASON that it is far worse now is gonzo made a stupid stupid comment to congress under oath that this WASN'T political. Of course that's a valid reason and he should never have said that. I guess he forgot the law in his eagerness to smooth things over.

When playing politics, you have to pay attention or it bites you in the ass.

Of course the real reason? Getting Rove under oath.
 
First of all, in 1993, when clinton fired 93 attorneys, there WAS republican outcry: Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, Rush Limbaugh, Washington Time editorial, Paul Gigot.. do a google search on the terms ["march massacre" 1993]
Click to expand...

Well they shouldn't have said anything at all. It is the president's and only the president's purvue.

Second, you skipped 2002: Bush firings of US attorneys = 93 Outcry = 0
Click to expand...

As it should have been. They ALL serve at the pleasure and behest of the president regardless of which party they belong to, or who appointed them, or who ends up firing them.

Third, "immeasurably shrill"? Take a look at the last six years... democrats have been investigated by the US Attorneys 7 times more frequently than the republicans. Guess who has had more convictions? I'll quote the republicans back in 2001: "you lost, deal with it"
Click to expand...

When they find a congressman who is a republican with $93,000 in cash stashed in his home freezer, give mne a call.

Yes, there is going to be some kind of political context, since the president generally appoints USAs of his own party. However, once appointed, there should not be micro-management: sure the exec branch can ask for certain general themes (immigration, opposing party corruption, etc) but the primary duty of a USA is to serve justice.
Click to expand...

If the president feels that the person who serves at hois behest and pleasure is not doing a good job he should simply ignore it because "he is one of ours"? Where in the hell is the "justice" in that?
 
So you are not even certain?
Click to expand...

No. I wasn't there and will not expend the time and capital necessary to post the result on a posting board for which it is of significance to a mere two people. I will send off an e-mail to the Clinton Library and ask but I don't expect a reply.

I wasn't referring to his legal signature, I was referring to the defendant name in a lawsuit on the legal documents. They tend to get that exactly right.
Click to expand...

Do you have a copy of the pleading or service document for that lawsuit? Well, I don't either.
 
Last edited:
I do not think I can call myself a plinker. I hate .22 caliber pistols. I like things sthat you take your time with and make a great big bang. What would I call that? :)
 
As to other presidents firing U.S. Attorneys, some most certainly have.
Problem seems to be that re the present administration, they lied about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top