Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - What's all this hub-bub about George Bush?

archetypal fool · 09-01-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EaseUp

You are not likely to find it here. Behavior that was acceptable in the previous administration is worthy of impeachment and/or hanging and/or castration if W did it.

One small example: Clinton fired EVERY AG (count them: 93), one of whom was in the middle of investigating Dan Rostenkowski. Bush fired eight, but waited until after she had finished the Duke Cunningham case.

A little more information on that:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009784

I don't appreciate your source's obviously biased tones, his blatant lies and misinformation, and his holding back of important information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hubbell Standard

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

^^^This is misinformation. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy/Firings_and_activities_of_fired_U.S._attorneys">Source</a>

Quote:

Mid-term firings of U.S. attorneys were highly unusual, according to CRS and McClatchy

According to a CRS report published in February 2007 in order to "to ascertain how often, prior to 2007, U.S. attorneys left office before completing their four-year terms without a change in presidential administration," U.S. attorneys appointed and confirmed by a presidential administration generally stay on for the entire length of the administration. Most of those that have voluntarily resigned before their term ended, however, cited personal reasons such as seeking other positions or did so amidst allegations of "questionable conduct." [5]

Many U.S. attorneys continue to serve after the administration leaves office. However, U.S. attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the president," meaning that the president has the right to terminate their appointments at any time. According to a McClatchy news article dated March 13, 2007, "mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration," as was the case with the George W. Bush firings. [6]

According to the CRS report, in the past 25 years, with the exception of the most recent eight, only two U.S. Attorneys have been "apparently dismissed by the President." Both cases were under the Reagan Administration. Reagan dismissed William Kennedy, US Attorney for the Southern District of California, in 1982, reportedly for asserting that the CIA had pressured DOJ to pressure him not to pursue a case. The second was in 1984 when President Reagan dismissed J. William Petro, US Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio for disclosing information about an indictment. Petro was later convicted of the charges.[7] Both are considered traditionally reasonable causes to be asked to resign. [8] Most of the other attorneys who resigned "explicitly indicated (in news reports or elsewhere) that their intent was to take a position with a law firm or as house counsel for a business." Only three resignations (all of which occurred under George W. Bush's administration) were given without explicitly stating, or having information to back, reasons for leaving.[9]

On March 13, 2007, McClatchy Newspapers published an article stating that the "current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys." The article further goes on to state that "nonetheless, Bush aide Dan Bartlett noted Clinton's first term firings in defending Bush's second term dismissals." [10]

Record by presidential administration:

Ronald Reagan: Dismissed all previously appointed attorneys en masse and replaced them upon assuming office. All of those attorneys who left office before completing their two four-year terms left for personal reasons, with the exception of the two mentioned above (Kennedy and Petro).[11]

George H.W. Bush: Kept appointees from the previous administration. Only one attorney's "resignations [was] the result of questionable conduct." Frank McNamara, Jr. resigned because he had “been the focus of heated dispute since the Justice Department announced in November [1988] that he was the target of an internal probe.”[12]

Bill Clinton: Dismissed all previously appointed attorneys en masse and replaced them upon assuming office. Those attorneys who left office before completing their two four-year terms left for personal reasons. Two of those "resignations were the result of questionable conduct." Larry Colleton resigned in 1994 after being videotaped grabbing a reporter by the throat, and Kendall Coffey resigned in 1996 amidst allegations of biting a topless dancer. [13]

George W. Bush: Did not dismiss all the attorneys en masse when he assumed office. Bush Allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months until he replaced with his own selections early in his administration. Bush dismissed eight U.S. attorneys on December 7, 2006, in the middle of their second terms, without citing reason. Three other attorneys resigned without either explicitly stating reasons or providing conclusive evidence as to what reasons were prompting their resignations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hubbell Standard

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

^^^That one attorneys may seem like a bad thing, but trying to compare that to what Bush has done is out-right dishonest. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy/Firings_and_activities_of_fired_U.S._attorneys">Source</a>

Quote:

Political corruption investigations led by Attorneys

The firing of the seven U.S. Attorneys raised questions about whether they were fired to stop investigations into high ranking Republican Party officials. In four states the fired Attorney had pursued an investigation into the activities of Republican Members of Congress, administration officials, and high ranking state officials. The idea that Attorneys were removed to stymie investigations of political figures looms over the Attorney firing scandal. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has stated that, "If any U.S. attorney were removed because of a public corruption investigation or prosecution, this could well comprise obstruction of justice."[14]

**Carol Lam investigates Rep. Duke Cunningham, Rep. Jerry Lewis, Brent Wilkes, and K. Dusty Foggo

Lam began investigating Randy "Duke" Cunningham on June 6, 2005 after the San Diego Union-Tribune reported on the congressman's overvalued house sale to a connected defense contractor, Mitchell Wade. The investigation led to a series of revelations about Cunningham's misconduct as a government official that included that existence of a bribe "menu" matching the worth of earmarks Cunningham would insert into appropriations bills to bribe money a contractor could give to Cunningham. Cunningham and Wade plead guilty to multiple felonies and Cunningham was sentenced to eight years and eight months in prison, the longest sentence handed down to a sitting Member of Congress. Wade is still cooperating with prosecutors.

The revelations in the case led Lam to open investigations into the defense contractor and Republican fundraiser Brent Wilkes, Wilkes' best friend and the number three at the CIA, K. "Dusty" Foggo, and then-Appropriation chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA). On May 10, 2006, Lam told the Justice Department she intended to serve search warrants on Foggo, who had just resigned his post at the CIA. The next day, May 11, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam's investigation into Cunningham had spread to Rep. Lewis.[15] That same day, Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, wrote in an e-mail to the White House about "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."[16]

The day before Lam left her position she brought multiple indictments on felony charges against Foggo and Wilkes. The investigation into Jerry Lewis is ongoing. The FBI was investigating potential criminal wrongdoing on the part of Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) at the time of Lam's departure.[17] Lam would have been in charge of leading the investigation at the Attorney's office had she not been fired.

On March 19, 2007, Think Progress reported on suspicious ties between the first contract that Mitchell Wade received and the purchase of a yacht for Duke Cunningham that may implicate White House officials in the congressman's corruption schemes. Wade's first contract was a one month $140,000 contract, July 15, 2002 to August 15, 2002, with the Office of the Vice President to provide office furniture and computers. Two weeks later on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a $140,000 yacht for Cunningham with a cashier's check.[18] In September Wade was rewarded with a blanket $250 million contract from the General Services Administration to provide "specific computer services" to the Pentagon.[19]

**Paul Charlton investigates Rep. Rick Renzi

In late October of 2006, two liberal blogs revealed, later confirmed by the Associated Press and the Washington Post, that U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton had opened an investigation into a land deal made by Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) and a business partner James Sandlin.[20] Days after this investigation came to light the New York Times reported that the Attorney's office had also opened an investigation into whether Renzi introduced legislation that benefited a military contractor who donated heavily to his campaigns and employs his father.[21]

Renzi was a top target of Democrats in the 2006 election and won a close election 51%-43%.[22] Since Charlton's abrupt departure there has been little revelation as to the status of these investigations.

**Daniel Bogden investigates Rep. Jim Gibbons

On February 15, 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported that Daniel Bogden was investigating the newly elected Governor of Nevada, former-Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV), for allegedly accepting unreported gifts and/or payments from a campaign contributor and earmark recipient, Warren Trepp. The investigation examined the relationship between the former congressman and Trepp between the years 1997-2007). The Journal did not report when the investigation was opened. Bogden was since removed from his position as U.S. Attorney.[23][24]

**Bud Cummins investigates Gov. Matt Blunt

In January of 2006, Cummins opened an investigation into "allegations that Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt had rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts to run the state's driver's license offices." Cummins handled the case because the U.S. Attorney for Missouri recused themselves over conflict of interest concerns. Cummins states that he was told he would be fired in June as he was wrapping up the case. Cummins eventually brought no indictments against Gov. Blunt, the son of powerful Republican congressman Roy Blunt (R-MO). Cummins has since questioned whether he was fired for opening an investigation into a powerful Republican in a battleground state.[25]

Clinton fires 93 attorneys at the beginning of his term (as is normal) and one happens to have an on-going investigation going against a Democrat. - Bush fires 9 attorneys mid-term, and 4 of them happen to have investigations going against Republicans.

These numbers don't add up to "what Bush did was ok because Clinton did worse." Not even remotely. The "B...But Clinton!" argument that is being used to defend Bush has been old for a while, and has been discounted time and time again.