I have a few Clinton AG questions...

[lies and propaganda]

for some background, I was 12-20 years old when he was our President and not at all engaged in politics yet, and from 98-00 I was in the military, so without news basically.

So, Im currently in Oklahoma visiting family and I have read more bizarre LTTE's then I can even explain.

BUt one yesterday stood out just a bit because Im not as familiar with the background as I'd like to be, so Im coming to yall for some clarifications. I hope it doesnt start a flame war btwn us, id just like your historical input.

It read about what a hypocritical double standard society we live in when Scooter Libby is on his way to federal prison (Thats a good one!) and that Clinton perjured himself as well and got in no trouble... The writer then mentions that Clinton fired over 100 AGs for political reason but we dirty libs are making a big deal about Bushie firing but 8 and for no political reason whatsoever , yep.

So after i threw up in my mouth a little bit, i DID wonder if 100 AG's did get fired, and why...

I know i could google it but I would rather read real humans thoughts on it.

[SharonRB]

1. I'm so sick of that talking point about Clinton firing all 93 US attorneys

It's normal for a president to fire all US attorney when he is first elected -- every president has done it, as far as I know. What's unusual is for a president to fire selected USAs in the middle of a term or at the beginning of a second term, especially under the circumstances that have occurred here. Don't fall for that RW talking point -- it holds no water.

[Lobster Martini]

5. Must agree with the above

It is one thing for an incoming President to start with a clean slate. That's expected. It is another thing to start firing U.S. attorneys halfway through a second term for not being "team players."

[LiberalFighter]

24. It isn't wrong to fire or ask for resignations of USA's right after election...

even after their 2nd election.

What is wrong is if they were fired to obstruct investigations, to manipulate elections by putting in place those that would follow the WH demands.

There was an email sent out about 11/8/2004 to all USA's and I believe all appointees in the Dept of Justice also that stated Bush was not asking for any resignations.

That would strongly suggest that the Dept of Justice knew and the USA's knew of past practices generally when a new term started.

[BOSSHOG]

2. So easy to fuck with the minds of doormats

- If Clinton had told the truth nothing would have happened
- If libby had told the truth, cheney would be on trial

[lies and propaganda]

4. Definitely. Libby perjured to protect his boss...

I still dont think Clinton even commited perjury. Just a bunch of fucking spin.

But was there a deal made then when he fired them? Was it just a new prez, new people type of thing?

[BOSSHOG]

22. Its a window into the world of conservative values

I don't think Clinton perjured himself either, and I don't think he should have been asked the damn question but it works for those who believe shit.

To a conservative:
- If a liberal neighbor fucks another neighbors wife that's terrible
- If a conservative neighbor embezzles millions from a bank, no big deal.

To them its not the what but the who.

[Orrex]

7. That's a great double-whammy soundbyte!

I plan to steal it.

[BOSSHOG]

11. Run with it my Friend

The scum of the earth have changed the tone in America and operate with talking points, so be it. I find this one aggravates them almost as much as:

- If Clinton were President on 9-11 there would not have been a terrorist attack, because Clinton did not need a terrorist attack.

[Catherine Vincent]

17. Another zinger!

:thumbsup:

[BOSSHOG]

19. That one is

hard on the blood pressure of the patriotic flag wavers amongst us.

[Catherine Vincent]

15. ...

:thumbsup:

[lies and propaganda]

3. oh, Im not falling for a damn thing...

I just wondered if there was a reason because like i said, I wasnt at all political then.

[blm]

8. Almost ALL US attorneys get replaced by different administrations once they take office.

Clinton did it - Bush did it - no problem. But THEN Bush took the unprecedented step of firing these attorneys for NOT acting politically supportive of his agenda. THAT is what makes these political firings and not for poor performance of their jobs.

[SharonRB]

21. Too many people are falling for it, which is what drives me crazy

I've seen too many LTTEs that refer to Clinton firing all 93, so what's so bad about this? Makes me want to pull my hair out.

[LiberalFighter]

25. And that is a lie...

They may have been fired even though they submitted their resignations. But not all were fired.

[lies and propaganda]

29. sure, but I thought I worded my post enough to explain I just didnt know...

and wanted a little help on the issue.

I gained a lot from this post, I got what I came for ;)

[SharonRB]

32. You absolutely did -- I didn't mean to imply you were one of them!

I understood that you just wanted some help.

:)

[Journeyman]

6. A great source for info on this developing scandal is Joshua Micah Marshall. . .

over at Talking Points Memo.

www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Search through his posts for the past week or so, he has some very good explanations for what Clinton did and how it differs from the current situation.

Here's a link to a great article on why this situation matters: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013251.php

Good luck.

[lies and propaganda]

10. thank you so much!

on my way now!

[FoyF]

9. LTTE reading

Since you are in OK are you reading the "worst newspaper in the US", ie the Daily Disappointment...Oklahoman? This is the worst of the right-wing rags. Many who read this bird cage liner only listen to or watch Faux Noise so you can imagine how "informed" they are. As one of the previouse responses said, Clinton did dismiss US Attorneys when he took office...but not after ha had served a term. It has also been reported here that since 1980, only 3-5 US Attorneys have been dismissed at some time other than with the change of President. BTW, not only is the OP-ED page of the Oklahoman bad, their "journalism" severly lacking, practically nonexistant.

[lies and propaganda]

13. thats the one! Your post made me LOL!

it is by far, the WORST paper I have ever read.
Its purely masochistic picking it up but Ive been here for two weeks and every few days its hard to resist ;)

welcome to DU!

[havocmom]

12. NOT AGs but US Attorneys. And he didn't fire particular ones for refusing pressure

to go after members of the GOP just prior to an election.

BIG difference, which GOP shills and bots seem incapable of grasping. That reality thing really give them trouble, doesn't it? ;)

And, thank you for your service to the nation in 98-2000. You can keep serving the nation as a civilian by debunking this crap where ever you encounter it. :patriot:

[lies and propaganda]

14. thanks HavocMom!

I was lucky enough to get injured right when asshole was handed the presidency.. It was heartbreaking then, but I look back and gush at how lucky i was to be able to get out being a medic in the AF under a Bush...

[jobycom]

16. You could just search DU, that's been discussed plenty.

The short of it is this. Clinton was impeached, faced a trial by the Senate, and was cleared of impeachable offenses. When he left office, he was fined $500,000 and had his license to practice law revoked for his "misleading" answer during the evidentiary phase of the Paula Jones trial (there was not enough evidence that he had obstructed or committed perjury during his Grand Jury testimony, so there was no punishment). So Clinton, like Libby, faced the consequences of his actions, and was punished, even though the only crime proven was that he gave a misleading answer in the evidentiary phase of a lawsuit thrown out as having no merit to a question ruled irrelevant to the case.

As for Clinton and the attorneys he fired, he replaced 92 of the 93 US attorneys when he took office, as all presidents do. Actually, most fire all 93, but Clinton withheld firing one because he was investigating a case that Clinton was indirectly connected to, and Clinton wanted to avoid the appearance of obstructing an investigation.

Bush also fired the 93 attorneys when he took office. That's the way the system works--the new president gets to appoint whom he wants in the Justice Department. This is completely a different animal than the firing of the eight US attorneys Bush later fired. Bush's firings were due, not to political reasons, as your friends on OK have mislead you, but because they would not alter their investigations to suit Bush's partisan desires. They investigated crimes as they found them, rather than forcing investigations of Democratic candidates whom the attorneys (remember, Republican attorneys) deemed not worthy of investigating, and for investigating and convincting Republicans who were clearly guilty.

Even if that's too complicated for your conservative acquaintances to grasp, ask them this simple question: Why is Gonzales lying to Congress if he did nothing wrong? If he is comfortable that he followed proper legal procedure and violated no ethics, why has he refused to take credit for the firings, to the point where he fired his own assistant and blamed him? Gonzales, Bush, and Rove know Gonzales violated ethical standards and may have violated the law, maybe even to the point of committing impeachable crimes. That's why they are lying. Remember when Janet Reno caught so much flack for her disasterous decision at Waco? Remember her standing before Congress and answering very painful questions, and taking full blame for her failure? That's how you do it when you have integrity and are innocent of criminal intent. You don't fire underlings, get your boss to threaten to violate federal law to protect you from testifying, then refuse to comment when written documents prove you are lying.

Anyway, that's the short of it.

[lies and propaganda]

20. wow! He even kept one on that was investigating him!!!!

you would freaking think that would be enough to shut them up. But with the Bush bots, they only need to hear a 2 second snippet and then fly with it as fact...

Thanks for your points, great reply!

[Old and In the Way]

26. Well said jobycom!

It stands to reason that a new President will change out the US A's when he begins his term. The point is to get people in who will execute on your priorities...not the priorities of the past administration. That doesn't mean you fire them later when they aren't investigating your political opponents with more partisan bias or preventing the indictment of your political friends, which is what they did with Lam - your basic act of obstructing justice. And that's what we are seeing with this selected administration.

One thing else to counter the Bushbot's "Clinton did it" talking points....Republicans subpoenaed Clinton's administration 1050 times in 8 years...yet only one indictment came out of the $100MM or so they spent prosecuting their Inquisition of Democrats. That was the HUD Secretary, Henery Cisneros, who got busted for lying about payments made to a mistress (sound familiar?). As far as I can tell, there was no overarching conspiracy by Democrats to turn the USA into a One Crime Party State. Now, lets contrast that to the Congressional Republican oversight of Bush 2000-2006......"0" subpeona's. Nada, zilch, zippo. In just 3 short months, with no cooperation from the WH, look what we've managed to uncover. It's only just beginning.

[jobycom]

28. Well said, yourself.

:thumbsup:

[ieoeja]

31. One minor correction.

"the only crime proven was that he gave a misleading answer"

That wasn't a crime. It was an ethical violation. As someone who is not a lawyer, I would have received no punishment whatsoever for the exact same actions even if some zealot decided to pursue such a minor case.

[jobycom]

34. Well, now I've looked it up again, and I made another mistake.

Clinton was cited by the Paula Jones judge for "contempt of court." Not sure the legal status of that. He wasn't fined $500,000, as I mistakenly said, but $90,000. Not sure where I got the 500K from, but it was wrong. Thanks for the correction, you made me check my facts.

[lies and propaganda]

18. Im definitely seeing the forest for the trees, thanks guys!

Sometimes, even if its embarrassing, a loyal Dem will have to wonder about some of the bullshit they hear spewed all the time.

I just wanted to clarify, thanks!

[ieoeja]

33. It is difficult when your news is censored.

I grew up in what would later become a very Red area (southern Indiana). I now live in Chicago. During the 2000 elections I would go visit the family and be absolutely astounded by the news reporting.

-- ALL of the pro-Bush/anti-Gore items reported in the Chicago media were also reported in southern Indiana.

-- NONE of the anti-Bush/pro-Gore reported in the Chicago media were also reported in southern Indiana.

The difference was that stark. In addition, anti-Gore stories that had petered out after a week long run in Chicago were still headlining the news in southern Indiana. Worse yet, stories that had been debunked (Love Canal, Internet, etc) in Chicago news were still being reported as true in southern Indiana. Clearly the problem wasn't with the Chicago media as they reported everything while the media in southern Indiana was heavily censored.

I don't know about Oklahoma, but I'd be surprised if your news weren't also highly censored.

[sinkingfeeling]

23. Try this document. It lists all the USAs that left in mid-term and why.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/crs-united-states-attorneys/?resultpage=1

"Indeed, Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Reagan replaced the 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of their administration as part of the normal turnover involved in the alternation of power. A report issued on Feb. 22 from the Congressional Research Service revealed that between 1981 and 2006, only five of the 486 U.S. attorneys failed to finish their four-year terms, and none were fired for political reasons. Only three were fired for questionable behavior, including one on "accusations that he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club after losing a big drug case." In brief, Bush's firings were unprecedented, and Rove's talking point was simply one among several shifting explanations, starting with the initial false talking point that those dismissed suffered from "low performance."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/03/22/attorneys/

[lies and propaganda]

30. thanks! an above poster came me that TP link and its great!

[subterranean]

27. The ignorance out there is amazing

Even here in the liberal Bay Area, some of the LTTEs display an ignorance of basic facts. One of them in my local paper this weekend claimed that Bush's mistake was that he kept Clinton's appointees, and that Carol Lam was a Clinton holdover who should have been fired a long time ago! (The fact is that Bush DID replace all of Clinton's US attorneys at the start of his term, as is customary, and Carol Lam was appointed by Bush).