Prosecutors, Hypocrisy and Harry Reid

I’ve been following the unfortunate career of Harry Reid since he joined the US Senate in 1986. His latest pronouncement, concerning the firing of eight US Attorneys, is one more example that he will do and say whatever he can get away with, to earn himself either political capital, or capital gains in a land deal.

Is that too harsh a judgment of a man who is now the Majority Leader in the US Senate? Judge for yourself.

Here’s what Harry Reid said on TV, in front of God and everybody, about the decision of the Bush Administration to terminate eight (less than 10% of all the US Attorneys): He called on Attorney General Gonzales to resign “in order to restore the Justice Department’s credibility on both sides of the aisle.” He also described the actions as one of the most “shocking abuses of power” that he had ever seen.

Apparently the Senator from Searchlight, Nevada, was previously blind, since President Clinton in 1993, and President Reagan in 1981, both fired all of the currently serving US Attorneys, or about 90 of them, in one fell swoop. Senator Reid was not around to comment on the Reagan mass removal of US Attorneys in 1981. But he was in the Senate in 1993 for the Clinton purge.

And what did Harry Reid, a Democrat, say about that? Not a discouraging word was heard, to quote a famous Western song. And did he demand the resignation of Attorney General Janet Reno, a Democrat, at that time? Not on your tintype.

Let’s get some particulars on the table. All US Attorneys are appointed by the President. And today, all of them serve at the “pleasure of the President” after they have completed their initial four years after confirmation by the Senate. Harry Reid is not a stupid man. He knows that any President, at any time, has the power to remove eight (or more) US Attorneys without stating a reason for those removals.

So, what really has Senator Reid’s knickers in a knot on this subject? There are two reasons, one personal/political and the other party/political. The personal side is that one of the Attorneys dismissed was a protege of Reid. The political side is that the eight dismissed Attorneys were apparently slack in pursuing cases of election fraud. The largest single source of election fraud cases is a national organization called ACORN. It’s full name is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

In the last presidential election ACORN registered about 1 million new “voters.” Since then, its employees and representatives have pleaded guilty or been found guilty in dozens of cases of fraud, including providing heroin as compensation for the filing of fraudulent registrations. And most of the new “voters” discovered by ACORN are in a group that votes 90% for Democrats.

So, a win-at-any-cost Democrat, which I believe Harry Reid to be, would not be eager for US Attorneys to investigate fraud in federal elections. As for why I place Senator Reid in that category, it goes back to his first election.

I had spent 25 years traveling around the country as an expert witness on behalf of ALEC (a membership organization of state legislators) on behalf of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution. The form of the proposed Amendment that ALEC supported was the one drafted by Dr. Milton Friedman.

In his campaign to become a US Senator, Harry Reid repeatedly told his constituents that he would “vote for the Balanced Budget Amendment.” Within three months of taking office, Reid had a chance to do just that. The BBA failed to get a 2/3rds vote in the Senate by a single vote on that occasion. And Reid, contrary to his pledge to his state, voted against the BBA.

So, Harry Reid’s latest political dishonesty is no surprise to me. He can get away with lying about the right to remove US Attorneys only with either the incompetence or the connivance of the press. Placing the facts of what Presidents Reagan and Clinton did concerning US Attorneys in articles about Reid today would expose the Senator’s hypocrisy. But almost no mainstream media have bothered to make that highly relevant comparison.

Seems like the press is defending Senator Reid from the consequences of his own dishonestly, doesn’t it?

About the Author: John Armor has practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.

I suspect that most readers here will have their own reasons for a similarly low conclusion about Senator Harry Reid.

John / Billybob

Here is what amazes me about the attorney firings. They are political appointees. They serve at the President's pleasure. When he wants to, he may fire them. It is a relic of the spoils system. Therefore Clinton could fire them, Reagen could fire them, and any President can fire them at his pleasure. Period.

To me Chuck Shumer and some other "Senators" sounded like idiots since they must knew that the attorneys were political appointees.

2 posted on 03/18/2007 2:02:45 PM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends we need a 800 ship Navy.)

Here is what amazes me about the attorney firings. They are political appointees.

Furthermore, the Dems and their Media insist that the firing are "Political." Since the attorneys are political appointees, they can be fired for political reasons.

They Dems just have to fool about 10% of the electorate voters to win elections; they are their target audience.

So, a win-at-any-cost Democrat, which I believe Harry Reid to be....

I see you have been aware of Harry Reid's "qualities" for quite some time. I have been watching him in the Senate for several years now and there is no lie he will not tell, no low trick he will not pull, for the sake of political power.

5 posted on 03/18/2007 2:13:51 PM PDT by Bahbah (Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)

The BBA failed to get a 2/3rds vote in the Senate by a single vote on that occasion. And Reid, contrary to his pledge to his state, voted against the BBA.

Wow! I didn't realize it came that close. I doubt I would dislike HR any less if he had voted in favor.

Would that be Daniel Bogden US Attorney for the district of Nevada? I see that the firing of the Nevada DA probably would get Reid's knickers in a twist. The new one may come after him.

Also voting against the BBA, after promising to vote for it the year before in his election was Bob Torrecelli of NJ. At the time of his NAY vote he declared that he still favored the balanced budget ammendment, just not the BBA they were voting on that day. Bobby boy at least got his due, by and by, but taxpayers are still getting screwed.

Here is what amazes me about the attorney firings. They are political appointees. They serve at the President's pleasure.

Apparently the President is pleased at being falsely accused and has no plans whatsoever to defend himself. As usual.

Regards.

9 posted on 03/18/2007 3:39:44 PM PDT by ARE SOLE (Agents Ramos and Campean are in prison at this very moment.)

Why am I still amazed at:

1. How disingenuous the MSM is in reporting this tempest in a teapot; and

2. How inept the Bush Administration is in pointing out the Democrats' hypocrisy.

10 posted on 03/18/2007 3:49:59 PM PDT by Haroldson (If you choke a smurf, what color does it turn?)

It wasn't only about election fraud: one of the attorneys (in San Franscisco?) refused to prosecute illegal immigration cases, while another was apparently simply a blithering nincompoop.

In a perfect world, President Bush would issue a statement showing deep concern about the controversy - and then fire another 8 U.S. Attorneys.

12 posted on 03/19/2007 8:10:21 PM PDT by Enterprise (I can't talk about liberals anymore because some of the words will get me sent to rehab.)

I seem to recall that last week Sen. Ensign held a presser because he was upset over the firing ot the NV Atty after initially thinking it was ok. Anyone know the story there, with Ensign ?

14 posted on 03/20/2007 9:53:31 PM PDT by Christian4Bush (Too bad these leftist advocates for abortion didn't practice what they preach on themselves.)

Maybe it is just me, but I think that Mr Bush is giving the Dems a lot of rope. . . you know the stuff they can hang themselves with!

Like global warming, carbon footprints and now the screaming over this tempest in a teapot the majority of the public is beginning to wise up. So let the MSM shout it too the heavens I think that it will rebound on the Dems (and the CO2 idiots) in short order.

As I like to say, time will tell.

15 posted on 03/21/2007 11:36:43 AM PDT by lowbuck (The Blue Card (US Passport). . . Don't leave home without it!)

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.