How many US Atty's were let go when Reagan, Carter, and Nixon took office?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

Is this information readily available?

This would be the most valid comparison to the "Clinton fired 93 atty's" Rove talking point which does not seem to have been effectively refuted by the Democratic Party or media, although I don't watch much TV.

The valid comparison would be when opposite party administrations took power. And to point out that firing your own appointees mid term is an almost unprecedented event.

[Atman]

1. The Clinton firings have been very well refuted

The only people still trying to use them as a valid comparisons are desperate republicans on talking head news shows. Intelligent people know the difference.

.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. Where is the information, the answer to the OP question?

[bryant69]

5. Yes there's no reason to refute this argument

because anybody making it is a conservative dope. I mean if they weren't conservative Dopes they wouldn't be asking this question, right?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[dysfunctional press]

15. and therein lies the problem...

"Intelligent people know the difference."

but how will the truth about the political motivations for these firings get through to the majority of americans?

[blogslut]

3. The refutation is

All US presidents replace/appoint USAs AT THE BEGINNING of the term. What they don't do is replace them two years after the term begins.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. I know, but are the numbers for this anywhere linkable?

[cali]

6. It is standard practice

when a new admin of a different party from its predecesor is elected, it is standard practice to replace the U.S. Attorneys. It's that simple. What evidently was slightly unusual about the replacement process under Clinton, is that they did it en masse. Usually it's staggered a bit, so that an orderly transition takes place.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

9. Right, but have any Democratic figures been on TV saying "well Reagan let x atty's go, and

Nixon let y atty's go, the difference is this was the normal for getting rid of the other party's appointees to make way for your own, not purging your own appointees"?

Since Rove uses a number, our side should have numbers too should it not? I think it should. I agree the point is easily refuted but the refutation is stronger if you counter their number immediately with a number.

[Gold Metal Flake]

7. Stop conflating the ordinary changing of the guard with a political assasination.

The USA firings are not the usual turnover when a new admin takes over. The USA scandle is like when Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor in the action known infamously as the Saturday Night Massacre.

These firing were to prevent politically sensitive investigations and to lard the USA group with partisan hacks.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

11. Did you read my post and see that I agree entirely with you? My question is,

what is the numbers involved?

[Gold Metal Flake]

13. I know and I am searching! I had a link around here, dammit...

Not trying to be arguementative. Frustrated I can't find the perfect bit of info for you. I saw a link to a goverment report just performed on the history of firings NOT undertaken as a normal changeover of admins. Under Clinton, there were only two. One was when an USA bit the arm of a stripper in a strip club. The second I can not recall. I thought I got the link from TPM, but I lookeded and did not find it. Maybe it was Kos, but I did not save the post. Maybe it was Huff. I will look some more during lunch.

Anyway, try these links for ammo in the meantime:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/13/16213/7689

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013026.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013018.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013023.php

[Sal316]

8. Ummm, you might wanna try the CRS

Congressional Research Service.

In stories floating around when this broke, the CRS released a statement that said - "The Congressional Research Service has confirmed how unprecedented these firings are. It found that of 486 U.S. attorneys confirmed since 1981, perhaps no more than three were forced out in similar ways — three in 25 years, compared with seven in recent months."

Hope this helps.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. Right, I was curious about the numbers involved (vs. 93) in similar post election

"housecleaning" by newly elected parties.

I feel that as a talking point, for the Republicans to have a number like this, it has more strength to have the number on the other side.

It's not just the hacks making the talking point, they know what they are doing. It's the audience for the talking point that must receive the refutation.

[Igel]

12. I've looked for the numbers, but haven't found any.

It seems that one reason the Clinton firings were exceptional is that US attorneys usually submitted their resignations to the new prez--who then had the option of hiring new ones or keeping the old ones. Therefore you could have a complete turnover with no firings. The "lack of civility" in having repub-appointed US attorneys not submit their resignation is one reason I've seen for Clinton's having to fire them all. It makes his actions anomalous but justifiable, and disguises the real anomaly of his action.

A complete turnover in US attorneys all at once is unusual. Most prezes--including *--keep on some attorneys. Sometimes they disposed of the hold-overs later in their term or dispsed of an attorny they originally appointed. The oft-cited numbers are usually read to mean this only happened 3 times. The numbers are right, but the inference drawn is incorrect. A bit of critical thinking shows that the inference is obviously false.

One name that comes to mind in this connection is Mary Jo White, who had an op-ed in one morning paper (NYT? WashPo?). She was kept on by *, altough originally appointed by Clinton. But she is no longer US attorney. However, she is not included in the report widely quoted as saying so few attorneys had been fired. She resigned. Since US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the prez, when there's evident displeasure or pressure is brought to bear they generally submit a resignation; it may be accepted or rejected. In White's case, she resigned. This is the route usually taken for replacing US attorneys. But it makes the "fired" stats mostly meaningless.

What's different with the * firings is not that they were appointed by * and fired under *, or that they weren't following the administration's priorities, but that they were just out-and-out fired. The usual route would be to request--directly or indirectlytheir resignations.

To find the numbers, unless they're in a handy report somewhere, would be obnoxious. You'd have to find the name of everybody who stopped being a US attorney, say in the lat 31 years; then omit those who left for health reasons or bona fide personal reasons (retirement, family problems, stress ...), and skip those who left at the beginning of a new prez's term. Then comes the hard part: find those who actually left because of bungles so great that their continued tenure in the job was untenable. This hard because many errors that are usually okay may not be okay in a particular circumstance--it may be the last in a serious of bungles, it may be a political football, it may be that the press piles on that particular error. (So you can see why "firings" is the facile response--directly, if simplistically, equivalent, and unproblematic.)

[The Blue Flower]

14. Irrelevant

The issue is why they were let go. This is about using USAs as political hatchets.

[onenote]

16. i agree its irrelevant, but here's a link that might help

http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/03/14/lying-liars/

and this article also has some useful info and references:

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+1687

[MGKrebs]

17. They only have four year terms.

The question doesn't really make any sense. ALL USA's are replaced every four years. Some presidents may choose to re-appoint some of them, and I suppose that is the answer you are looking for, but they have to be re-appointed every four years.

That is my understanding.

[Gold Metal Flake]

18. Hazzah! I found it!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/18/34257/7486

As for situations that were actually similar, the Congressional Research Service issued a report (pdf) looking at US Attorneys who were let go during a President's term. It found eight examples of US Attorneys who were let go mid-term. And here were the reasons cited for five of them:

William Kennedy - Fired by Reagan after making public accusations that the DoJ and the CIA were interfering in one of his cases (1982).
J. William Petro - Fired by Reagan for allegations of misconduct; he later got convicted on six counts (1984).
Larry Cottleton - Resigned after assaulting a reporter (1994).
Kendall Coffey - Resigned after reportedly biting an exotic dancer on the arm at a strip club (1996).
Frank MacNamara - Resigned instead of being suspended by AG Richard Thornburgh for allegedly lying about William Weld’s use of marijuana (1989).

In other words, only one was let go because of political reasons similar to the events of the December 7 purge. The others were let go because of questionable conduct, which none of the prosecutors let go by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush were accused of.

In all other cases of mid-term replacement of US Attorneys, the prosecutor left for another job (whether as an Article III judge, private practice or running for elected office). Wait, scratch that. There was one other case found by the CRS; a death during the time in office. It should go without saying (though, from this sentence, it does not) that none of the fired US Attorneys died while in that position.

Hope this helps! :hi: