ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.
As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
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.
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
It's a different issue. The convention is to replace these people when a new president enters. At least Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II did it. (I don't know if Bush I did it.) The issue here is that you don't fire people in the middle of your term or it looks like you're trying to cover something up, and the early evidence suggests that's the case. Already, I read on a liberal blog that a number of Republican leaders appear to have been involved in these firings, including Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Duke Cunningham, etc.
Geez, Fogbuster, I think everyone on these forums knows what Clinton did, how it's similar to what Bush did, and how it's different from what Bush did.
It's a different issue. The convention is to replace these people when a new president enters. At least Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II did it. (I don't know if Bush I did it.) The issue here is that you don't fire people in the middle of your term or it looks like you're trying to cover something up, and the early evidence suggests that's the case. Already, I read on a liberal blog that a number of Republican leaders appear to have been involved in these firings, including Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Duke Cunningham, etc.
Patters, whats the point in trying to make the distinction? The dolts on the fringe right wing have their spoon fed Faux News justification for this and they are going with it. Never mind that the evidence that is emerging shows an unprecedented politicization of the DOJ.
Sununu (R-NH) just came out and is asking for Gonzo to go. Other, similarly reasonable Republicans will soon follow, to save their asses before the next round of con purging. Its unfortunate that good Republicans will be sacked because of the abuses at the top, but where were they when oversight was required?? They were lazy rubber stampers, more concerned about brownnosing some Abramoff hack....abrogating thier constitutional duty to counter a rogue executive branch. Now they will soon pay for it, as they should.
And the fringe wil continue, as they do with every Bush abuse of power, to weakly defend these unconstitutional actions as acceptable practice in american governance.
Our forefathers must be truly shocked.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Firings are firings, regardless of when they happen. More to the point, let's look at the scale: Gonzalez fired 8, Reno/Hubbell fired 93!! 93 vs 8. People are getting their shorts in a wad over this?? Can we get any more partisan?!
What's next: Bush's Sec/Defense is seen riding in a tank!! Bush's Sec/State is seen at a foreign film!!
Firings are firings, regardless of when they happen.
That's the single most dumbest thing you've said!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fogbuster
More to the point, let's look at the scale: Gonzalez fired 8, Reno/Hubbell fired 93!! 93 vs 8. People are getting their shorts in a wad over this?? Can we get any more partisan?!
If the "why" wasn't important, you'd have a point.
If the "why" wasn't important, you'd have a point.
What is the difference, in the broad sense, between firing 93 people at the beginning of one's term -- a wholesale wipe-out never before done by *any* president, not even Reagan or Carter -- and firing 8 in the middle of one's presidency?? They were both fired for the same reason: politics. The both served at their presidents' pleasure, and both were fired because the presidents, Clinton and Bush II, wanted to make changes. Big freaking deal.
This just stinks of yet another attempt to get at Bush, plain and simple.
//
Last edited by Fogbuster; 03-14-2007 at 06:24 PM..
What is the difference, in the broad sense, between firing 93 people at the beginning of one's term -- a wholesale wipe-out never before done by *any* president, not even Reagan or Carter -- and firing 8 in the middle of one's presidency?? They were both fired for the same reason: politics. The both served at their presidents' pleasure, and both were fired because the presidents, Clinton and Bush II, wanted to make changes. Big freaking deal.
This just stinks of yet another attempt to get at Bush, plain and simple.
//
It is another attempt to get at Bush, you're right. The Dems hate him and the repubs hated Clinton equally. This is what's wrong with partisanship that's gone up to "11" in the last couple of admins. It's a testament of the horrible leadership we've had to endure collectively for the last 14 years and it sucks.
The problem here is that Bush continues to show a complete lack of political acumen in this and dozens of other cases. He is a poor politician, diplomat, communicator, negotiator, liar, and uniter (among other things). His "decider" ability isn't that good either.
It's a different issue. The convention is to replace these people when a new president enters. At least Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II did it. (I don't know if Bush I did it.) The issue here is that you don't fire people in the middle of your term or it looks like you're trying to cover something up, and the early evidence suggests that's the case. Already, I read on a liberal blog that a number of Republican leaders appear to have been involved in these firings, including Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Duke Cunningham, etc.
People replace cabinet members all the time these attorney's are no different.
Getting rid of people who aren't being aggressive about voter fraud isn't a bad thing, if they had interfered with the investigations of Cunningham and Weldon, you would have a point. This however is not the case.
Just as a point how do you feel about Clinton firing Stevens who was investigating Clinton and replacing Stevens with one of his (Clinton's) ex students. Was this proper or not? Or firing the US attorney who was 30 days away from indicting Rostenkowski. leaving a crook in office for a couple of extra years?
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
Fire 'em all: a precedent of huge proportion
Linear Mode
