WP The Reno Precedent

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402194.html

The Reno Precedent
President Clinton's attorney general fired all U.S. attorneys. So why is this different?

Thursday, March 15, 2007; Page A18

THE LATEST they-do-it-too excuse for the undeniably botched and increasingly suspicious firings of U.S. attorneys involves the 1993 episode in which President Clinton's new attorney general, Janet Reno, unceremoniously dismissed the first Bush administration's holdover U.S. attorneys. By comparison with the Reno massacre, we are told, the Bush administration's canning of eight U.S. attorneys was positively restrained; if you suspect political motives in the current controversy, so the argument goes, consider that when he was ousted by Reno, the U.S. attorney in the District, Jay Stephens, was just weeks away from deciding whether to indict House Ways and Means Chairman Daniel Rostenkowski (D-Ill.). Inconveniently for these conspiracy theorists, Mr. Rostenkowski was in fact indicted and convicted -- and, yes, he ultimately was pardoned by President Clinton.

The Reno precedent is a red herring, not a useful comparison. The summary way she announced the move was, indeed, unusual if not unprecedented. But a turnover in the top prosecutorial jobs with a new administration taking power -- especially one of a different party -- was not. As we wrote at the time, "These are political appointees who owed their jobs to the last administration and have expected to be replaced ever since last November's election. It would likely have happened earlier had the Clinton administration not made such an adventure out of the appointment of an attorney general." And so President George W. Bush, properly and unsurprisingly, replaced all but a few U.S. attorneys during his first year in office. Indeed, while it would undoubtedly have been disruptive and unwise, it would not have been illegal or unethical for the president to follow the suggestion of his then-White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, to replace all the prosecutors again in his second term.

FULL story at link.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Had Any AG Before Reno Fired All Prosecutors?

Or is this another example of the mind meld of the Bush and Clinton families?

[pnwmom]

2. Yes, it was common practice when a new President came in.

But it was very unusual for a President to let go one of his own appointees no matter how long he stayed in office.

Here's a link, from a lawyer with CBS News.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/15/couricandco/ent...

There is so much disinformation and misinformation floating around cyberspace these days about the firing of eight federal prosecutors that you would almost think people on one side of the debate and the other are writing about and analyzing two completely different stories. Over and over again, supporters of the White House, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, seem to want to compare the current controversy with, especially, the decision by President Bill Clinton in 1993 to dismiss all of the federal prosecutors who had served under his predecessor, George H. W. Bush.

To compare these two episodes is to say that when a dog bites a man it is as newsworthy as when a man bites a dog. The comparison simply doesn’t work. As I have mentioned here before, every incoming president seeks to install into office his crop of federal prosecutors. Republican presidents have done this and so have Democrats and it is such routine that it barely makes any news. Existing federal prosecutors know that, when the president who appointed them leaves office, they had better start updating the resume. Like it or not, this practice is not controversial. It is a rule that has governed the game for decades.

So, please, let’s all stop trying to compare the “Reno 93” with the “Gonzales 8.” Even Republican lawmakers are growing uneasy with that inapt comparison. One legal scholar after another, and one veteran Justice Department watcher after another, has come forward to say that it is extraordinary for a White House to fire a federal prosecutor mid-term, or even mid-presidency, absent some extraordinary misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of the U.S. Attorney.

SNIP