Posted on 03/14/2007 10:19:58 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle
Gonzales takes responsibility over dismissals of U.S. attorneys but brushes off calls for resignation
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he is troubled by the Justice Department's misleading explanations to Congress of why it fired eight U.S. attorneys and expected his attorney general to fix them.
The president said he stood by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales amid calls for his ouster.
"Mistakes were made. And I'm frankly not happy about them," President Bush told reporters at a news conference in Mexico, where he is wrapping up a weeklong trip to Latin America.
"Any time anybody goes up to Capitol Hill, they've got to make sure they fully understand the facts and how they characterize the issue to members of Congres," he said. "And the fact that both Republicans and Democrats feel like that there was not straightforward communication troubles me and it troubles the attorney general. So he took action, and he needs to continue to take action."
Mr. Gonzales rejected growing calls for his resignation Tuesday as scores of newly released documents detailed a two-year campaign by the Justice Department and White House to purge federal prosecutors.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
No there wasn't. You told me so, yourself.
Sorry! But, it looks like he or they weren't very careful when they hired these guys.
Almost all of the Clinton USAs were replaced by President Bush in 2001. A couple hung on. The facts are what they are, and no amount of misdirection will change them. Why are you so afraid of the facts?
By mid- to late 2001, Bush had replaced 92 out of 93 U.S. Attorneys. He left Mary Jo White in the Southern District of New York, but replaced her in 2002.
You may not like this, but USAs are law enforcement officers. They are not supposed to conduct a political prosecution of whoever they are directed to pursue by a Congressman or his staff. In fact, the Congressman and/or his staff should not even be making such requests - they are highly improper.
You told me yourself that Mary Jo White was kept on. I'm trying to find out how many were fired in 2001 and when. I'm willing to believe that (a) they were gradually replaced in 2001 so as to finish current projects and (b) more than one was kept on for a significant amount of time. It's hard to find such information, though. Chertoff was the only US Attorney kept on when the Clintons took office and only at the request of Bill Bradley.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AG
MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2001
(202) 514-2007
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
TDD (202) 514-1888
WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys.
Attorney General Ashcroft said, "We are committed to making this an orderly transition to ensure effective, professional law enforcement that reflects the President 's priorities."
In January of this year, nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations. Two Justice Department exceptions were the United States Attorneys and United States Marshals.
Prior to the beginning of this transition process, nearly one-third of the United States Attorneys had already submitted their resignations. The White House and the Department of Justice have begun to schedule transition dates for most of the remaining United States Attorneys to occur prior to June of this year. President Bush will make announcements regarding his nominations to the Senate of new United States Attorneys as that information becomes available. Pending confirmation of the President's nominees, the Attorney General will make appointments of Interim United States Attorneys for a period of 120 days (28USC546). Upon the expiration of that appointment, the authority rests with the United States District Court (28USC546(d)).
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm
THIS issue isn't about either of those things, though you and a bunch of others are trying to make this sound like this is about firing Clinton appointees, and a bunch of people are flat-out saying that falsehood, over and over again, despite knowing full well that isn't the case.
Why are you so afraid of the facts? What are you trying to hide?
Don't confuse them with the facts, LL. Those just get in the way of the talking points from their blast fax.
I want to hear "The American Citizens have spoken and we are correcting the mistakes."
Like I noted in another post, the Republicans in Congress and the White House, who constantly cower to the Rats, must have a chapped rear-end from having their tails tucked between their legs for so long.
Albert Beveridge III's political contributions.
Henry Diamond only gave $1000 -- to Chuck Robb.
So, it's not the least bit political. Not at all.
OK. Which day?
Good job Brownie - Alberto is history.
It is customary for all US attorneys to submit their resignation when a new president takes office. So far, I haven't seen any proof that Pres. Bush accepted all or most of them. There were complaints at the time that he SHOULD have tossed out the Clinton attorneys.
I am open to the truth. I'd like to know just what the truth is.
But, except in the fantasy you are trying to manufacture, it doesn't really matter whether it was March or May or June. They both replaced the vast majority of their predecessor's USAs within the first several months in office. That is what happens. I'm not really sure why you want to cast this otherwise, but you clearly do. What's your aim here? Why do you seem to want people to believe that these firings were simply long overdue firings of Clinton holdovers? Or even that there were such folks, with a couple of exceptions?
Why are you so concerned about the truth? These USAs serve at the pleasure of the President. They could've been fired over their haircuts. Why are folks working so hard to make up fake excuses for it?
“Look, by law and by Constitution, these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think 128 U.S. attorneys — that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123. I mean, this is normal and ordinary.” - Karl Rove
Normally, when control of the Administration changes from one party to the other, the old U.S. attorneys are replaced gradually. Thus, when Tom Corbett, chairman of the U.S.-attorney advisory committee, asked Miss Reno about the transition timetable on Thursday, March 18, and got no answers, he assumed there would be the traditional, slow handover. He reeled when, on Monday morning, Associate Attorney General Hubbell told him the attorneys would have to resign immediately. Literally. "[They] should be able to clear out of their offices over the weekend," one White House politico told Corbett. (Miss Reno was nowhere in sight.) Corbett had to fight just to get the attorneys an extra week to clear out.
The next day Miss Reno called for resignations. Jay Stephens, the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., resigned that afternoon, commenting that he had been within thirty days of a "critical decision" about Rostenkowski. (Once Stephens left, the transition lost its urgency; some Republican U.S. attorneys are still on board.) The Illinois congressman may yet be indicted for his alleged abuse of the House Bank, but Stephens's hasty dismissal surely slowed the investigation, leaving Rosty, who loses his chairmanship if indicted, in place to steer Clinton bills through the House.
You're right, lug! It didn't happen on inauguration day. It happened on March 22. If I read the article correctly, they were all (except for Chertoff) gone by March 29. According to Steffy, the only ones to be kept on, were the ones who were in the middle of a trial.
The point isn't that all USA's were replaced, it's that it happened all at once so as to cut off continuing investigations. At the time, the belief was that it was to short-circuit or blunt the investigation of the House scandals -- bank and post office. It may have kept such an investigation from expanding too widely, we'll never know.
But you knew all of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.