After First 93, Did Clinton Fire 3 Or 30 More Attorneys?

Sweetness & Light ^ | March 21, 2007 | N/A

[Sam Hill]

Does anybody know exactly what Al Kamen does at the Washington Post? Is he a reporter or is he just a color commentator?

If Mr. Kamen is a reporter he might want to have somewhat factcheck his latest piece. (Which begins, hilariously enough with the assurance that Alberto Gonzales is gone. Then features Kamen furiously backpedaling after President Bush's announcement yesterday.)

But Mr. Kamen also included in his [heavily excerpted] column this bit of seeming misinformation:

Fired With Cause

Meanwhile, amid the controversy over the administration's firing of the eight federal prosecutors, little attention has been paid to the fact that President Bill Clinton, after first sacking all 93 U.S. attorneys appointed by Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush, also fired or "resigned" three or four of his federal prosecutors.

One was Larry Colleton, who resigned shortly after he was videotaped grabbing Jacksonville, Fla., television reporter Richard Rose by the throat. Unclear why that was such a big deal.

Another Florida federal prosecutor, Kendall Coffey, resigned "amid accusations that he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club after losing a big drug case." (There was a strict Clinton policy against biting.) A third Clinton firing, noted by a Congressional Research Service report, was of San Francisco prosecutor Michael Yamaguchi, who seemed to have crossed swords with local judges and Justice Department officials. Clinton replaced him with Bush I Justice Department chief of the criminal division, a fellow named Robert Mueller, whom Bush II appointed FBI director.

But, with those few exceptions, the Clinton folks "didn't ask for resignations" after the first term, former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick recalls. In contrast to other positions, where people might expect to be replaced after four years, she said, "we considered [the prosecutors' jobs] to be a serious law enforcement function" and didn't think of replacing them after one tour.

According to Karl Rove, who should know, President Clinton appointed 123 US attorneys. (Compared to President Bush's 128.)

Which means, in addition to the original 93, Clinton "asked for resignations" of another thirty federal prosecutors during his eight year administration. Not "two or three" as Jamie "the wall" Gorelick and Mr. Kamen claim.

But who is correct here?

Why is these details so hard to find? Why can't our media watchdogs get out the most basic facts even in a story that is so dear to their hearts?

Don't they want to know the truth?

And speaking of things the media has assiduously ignored:

There was a strict Clinton policy against biting.

Someone should tell Juanita Broaddrick (on right) about that policy.

[Sam Hill]

Related Articles:

• Patrick Fitzgerald Rated "Not Distinguished" By DoJ
• How The NYT Covered Reno’s Firing Of All US Attorneys

[Sam Hill]

Ping.

[3AngelaD]

Al Kamen is a gossip columnist and general liberal POS.

[popdonnelly]

It doesn't matter how many the Clinton Administration canned, they're Democrats. And Janet Reno was one of the most incompetent and politically corrupted Attorney Generals in history.

[Michael.SF.]

I would think that over a period of time a good number of the prosecutors would also leave of their own volition, appointed to other offices, retire, some probably died and other reasons. Thus the primary reason for the 128 appointments for 93 positions.

[voltaires_zit]

> Which means, in addition to the original 93,
> Clinton "asked for resignations" of another thirty
> federal prosecutors during his eight year administration.

No, it means additional federal prosecutors were appointed, probably by splitting existing districts.

[bikerMD]

Does Will Ferrell do a damn dead on impression of Janet Reno or what?

[taxesareforever]

You're right. How fast would Bush's Attorney General be called before Congress if there was a case of Ruby Ridge or Waco under his watch? How long would he have stayed in office? nanoseconds.

[Lurking Libertarian]

No, it means additional federal prosecutors were appointed, probably by splitting existing districts.

No, there are still only 93 districts, same as in 1992. But, in addition to firings, there are replacements due to deaths, people leaving for the private sector, and (especially) U.S. Attorneys being appointed judges (very common, in most administrations).

[voltaires_zit]

> No, there are still only 93 districts, same as in 1992.
> But, in addition to firings, there are replacements due
> to deaths, people leaving for the private sector, and
> (especially) U.S. Attorneys being appointed judges (very
> common, in most administrations).

Thanks for the correction. You are quite right.

"At least 54 U.S. attorneys appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate left office before completion of a four-year term between 1981 and 2006 (not
counting those whose tenure was interrupted by a change in presidential
administration). Of those 54, 17 left to become Article III federal judges, one left to
become a federal magistrate judge, six left to serve in other positions in the executive
branch, four sought elective office, two left to serve in state government, one died,
and 15 left to enter or return to private practice.
Of the remaining eight U.S. attorneys who left before completing a four-year
term without a change in presidential administration, two were apparently dismissed
by the President, and three apparently resigned after news reports indicated they had
engaged in questionable personal actions. No information was available on the three
remaining U.S. attorneys who resigned."
http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33889_20070222.pdf

[Sam Hill]

"I would think that over a period of time a good number of the prosecutors would also leave of their own volition, appointed to other offices, retire, some probably died and other reasons. Thus the primary reason for the 128 appointments for 93 positions."

Yes, that's surely true. But the media has been intent on confusing the issue of course.

These numbers from Rove (123 versus 128) are the total sum of "appointments" made.

The way Rove explains it, it sound like he is counting the 93 that Bush didn't immediate remove as part of his grand total of appointments.

That is, it sound like they were "re-appointed" by Bush. By it is not clear exactly what he meant.

What is clear is that nobody has come forward with a clear and concise reckoning of the numbers of US attorneys who ere replaced during the various recent administrations.

And it's very probably that the media doesn't want that to come out because it will undercut their claim that Bush's actions are his latest crime against humanity.

But places like Wikipedia:

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Terminations_under_previous_White_House_administrations

Make some authoritative claims without any true documentation, such as:

[W]hen President George W. Bush took office in 2001, he received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.[71] A political office is generally considered one that the occupant "serves at the pleasure of the President." If there is a new President from a different party, it is expected that all of the resignations would be accepted.[72] The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party.[73] Presidents Reagan and Clinton immediately dismissed all 93 US attorneys when they came to office."

If that was the case, then all of the media reports at the time Clinton fired 92 of the 93 attorneys were quite wrong when they said it was "unprecedented."

I believe Wikipedia (being the way they are) is wrong about this. But why should it be so hard to get accurate information about something that should be readily available?

[Doogle]

*POUT*.."no Senator, it's just that I feel more comfortable in my flannel shirts"

[voltaires_zit]

The congressional research service report may be helpful:

http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33889_20070222.pdf

> The way Rove explains it, it sound like he is counting
> the 93 that Bush didn't immediate remove as part of his
> grand total of appointments.

That President Bush didn't fire them at a public news conference his first day in office doesn't imply he didn't replace them.

They were nearly all gone by the summer of 2001.

[Sam Hill]

"[W]hen President George W. Bush took office in 2001, he received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.[71]"

BTW, when you check the "documenation" for this Wikipedia claim, you are once again presented with the DoJ's press release, which says no such thing.

(Oddly enough it is the same "documentation" that the tag team of trolls on FR have pointed to to claim that Bush did the same thing as Clinton.)

The DoJ press release says what the goals of the administration are. There is no indication that they were carried out as described.

And there is no mention of any numbers (let alone 91 out of 93) in the document.

But that's what one expects from Wikipedia.

[Sam Hill]

"They were nearly all gone by the summer of 2001."

I realize this is a tar-baby. But would your produce some substantiation of this oft-repeated claim?

None of the dozens of posters who have made this claim here at FR have been able to do so.

(And the DoJ's press release cited above does not count, since it is merely a projection of what they thought might happen. There is no indication that it did.)

[ContemptofCourt]

Contrary to popular belief, Clinton did not fire all 93 of the US Attorneys. He retained at least one, Frank Black, who was appointed by Bush the Elder.

[Sam Hill]

"Contrary to popular belief, Clinton did not fire all 93 of the US Attorneys. He retained at least one, Frank Black, who was appointed by Bush the Elder.

No, he retained Michael Chertoff, because of Bill Bradley's intercession.

[Sam Hill]

"The congressional research service report may be helpful"

Did you bother to read it?

It concerns the 54 attorneys who left or were replaced before the end of their four year term and not at the onset of a new administration.

This is from the time period of 1981 to 2006.

[Sam Hill]

You need to read your talking points from the (ultra lefty) Talking Points Memo a little more carefully. (Are you sure you are an attorney?):

"A day later, the chief prosecutor, US Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black.
The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary status as the acting US attorney, Black had held the assignment for more than a decade.
The acting US attorney was a controversial official in Guam. At the time he was replaced, Black was directing a long-term investigation into allegations of public corruption in the administration of then-Governor Carl Gutierrez. The probe produced numerous indictments, including some of the governor's political associates and top aides.
Black, 56, had served as acting US attorney for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands since 1991, when he was named to the post by the president's father, President George H. W. Bush.
The career prosecutor, who held a senior position as first assistant before accepting the acting US attorney job, was demoted to a staff post. Black's demotion came after an intensive lobbying effort by supporters of Gutierrez, who had been publicly critical of Black and his investigative efforts."

TPMmuckraker January 29, 2007 05:20 PM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002429.php

His name was not Frank Black, but Frederick Black. And he was in a temporary "acting" position as the US Attorney for Guam.

But thanks for once again showing us where you are coming from.

[ContemptofCourt]

Oh, and I researched Bush's replacement of US Attorneys when he came into office. Unfortunately, it is a 28 page document. Know an easy way for me to post it on FR?

The bottom line is that Bush retained the following:

Jim Letten, ED LA. He served as acting USA until 2005, when he was appointed USA by Bush

Frank Black, Guam. Black, however, was actually a Bush I holdover by Clinton.

Mary Jo White, SD NY

Emily Sweeney, ND OH (the only Clinton holdover retained until the end of her term, in 2002)

Guillermo Gil in Puerto Rico. However, Gil was "interim USA" for Puerto Rico from 1993-2002, and was never appointed by any president.

Margaret Curran, RI (who served longer under Bush than under Clinton)

Paul Warner, Utah. Was initially appointed by Clinton in 1998, and reappointed by Bush in 2003.