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

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.

mojo, you need some reading comphrension skills.

21 posted on 03/21/2007 11:26:24 AM PDT by ContemptofCourt

Someone should tell Juanita Broaddrick (on right)

I like the assumption that Clinton might well have hit on the lady on the left of the photo, and that this needed to be clarified :0)

22 posted on 03/21/2007 11:27:17 AM PDT by agere_contra

To: ContemptofCourt

You could probably upload it somewhere, and then provide a link.

Or just link to wherever you got it from.

But I notice you've retreated from your previously and authoritatively held position that Bush immediately replaced all but one or two of the original 93 when he came into office. (Probably derived from the aforementioned Wikipedia entry.)

So you're making some progress.

23 posted on 03/21/2007 11:28:28 AM PDT by Sam Hill

To: ContemptofCourt

"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."

He was named to the position of "acting US attorney."

You really are thick. (Was it a matchbox law school?)

24 posted on 03/21/2007 11:29:33 AM PDT by 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.)

I did point you to an FR article last week indicating that by March 2001, 79 of the US Attorneys had been "bounced."

25 posted on 03/21/2007 11:43:05 AM PDT by NC28203

To: voltaires_zit

The problem with the CRS study is that it only looked at USAs who left during their initial four-year term. It didn't look into why holdovers left office after their terms had run. Most of Clinton's USAs didn't leave until after their initial terms had run. And it also conveniently didn't look into what happened during the Carter years, when, in particular, Philadelphia USA David Marston was fired by Carter well before his four-year term was up.
Not surprisingly, the CRS study was requested by the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.

Regarding the initial post, I wouldn't believe anything that comes out of Jamie Gorelick's mouth.

26 posted on 03/21/2007 11:43:14 AM PDT by conservative in nyc

mojo, wouldn't you agree that being named "interim" or "acting" is the same as being appointed, particularly when there is no time limit involved?

For instance, Paula Silsby was named as the "acting/interim" USA for Maine in 2001. She has been serving since 2001, and has never been nominated or appointed.

mojo, I can see why you have been banned twice. Googling your former screenname is quite revealing.

27 posted on 03/21/2007 11:44:20 AM PDT by ContemptofCourt

28 posted on 03/21/2007 11:46:38 AM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)

You could probably upload it somewhere, and then provide a link.
Or just link to wherever you got it from.
But I notice you've retreated from your previously and authoritatively held position that Bush immediately replaced all but one or two of the original 93 when he came into office. (Probably derived from the aforementioned Wikipedia entry.)
So you're making some progress.

mojo, you could do the research if you wanted to, but you'd rather just make silly claims. A good starting point is the white house's own website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/nominations, but you will have to keep looking as there are holes in the data (for instance, a few USA's appointed by Bush have been appointed as judges, so the nomination page only lists the later nomination).

If you, or anyone, would like the history of a particular USA appointed by Bush, then ask. Otherwise, STFU.

29 posted on 03/21/2007 11:47:38 AM PDT by ContemptofCourt

30 posted on 03/21/2007 11:48:59 AM PDT by amigatec (Carriers make wonderful diplomatic statements. Subs are for when diplomacy is over.)

To: ContemptofCourt

You're a troll. It's clear from your posts on this thread and elsewhere that is what you are. (Look up his posting history, folks.)

I don't waste my time with trolls.

Go back to TPM and DU.

31 posted on 03/21/2007 11:49:17 AM PDT by Sam Hill

Damn, truth hurts, huh mojo?

I have admitted that I was errant, and I have researched every USA appointed by Bush in 2001-2003. I have pointed you to the best source of information. Yet I am a troll? Can you not deal with facts?

32 posted on 03/21/2007 11:51:48 AM PDT by ContemptofCourt

Yes, you did. A New York Daily (Worker) News report. Granted not the most authoritative of sources.

The article also included this:

"Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had urged Bush to allow Lynch to serve her full term, citing a New York tradition honored by incoming Presidents since the 1970s. "It's a shame that President Bush has decided to discontinue" the bipartisan tradition, Schumer said."

Which we now know is untrue, since at least 54 US Attorneys have been removed (or removed themselves) in mid-term (and not counting the start of new administrations) since 1981.

If you count those removed at the onset of new administrations, (such as Clinton's) the number would be far greater.

Odd that Sen. Schumer didn't know that.

33 posted on 03/21/2007 11:54:16 AM PDT by Sam Hill

To: conservative in nyc

> The problem with the CRS study is that it only looked at
> USAs who left during their initial four-year term.

I agree, it's not the best document. What would be nice, and ought to be easy enough for any of the players in the controversy to put together, would be a matrix 93x?? showing who has held each office when and who appointed them.

Unfortunately, it seems bloviation is a much higher priority than illumination.

34 posted on 03/21/2007 11:57:41 AM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)

"Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had urged Bush to allow Lynch to serve her full term, citing a New York tradition honored by incoming Presidents since the 1970s. "It's a shame that President Bush has decided to discontinue" the bipartisan tradition, Schumer said."

Which we now know is untrue, since at least 54 US Attorneys have been removed (or removed themselves) in mid-term (and not counting the start of new administrations) since 1981.

mojo, wrong once again. It was a tradition, from Ford to Bush, that incoming presidents would allow the USA in NY to serve out their terms. Although I do not think that Clinton adhered to this tradition (Newman, NYT, March 16, 2001, A1)

35 posted on 03/21/2007 11:57:54 AM PDT by ContemptofCourt

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?

Thanks for the great chuckle! :-)

36 posted on 03/21/2007 11:59:53 AM PDT by ladyinred

To: voltaires_zit

Such a matrix would be difficult to produce. It took me 2 days to determine who Bush appointed. Finding Clinton's appointees was even harder.

Part of the problem is that there are US Attorneys serving who were not "nominated" or "appointed" by Bush, but by the AG as acting or interim US Attorneys.

37 posted on 03/21/2007 11:59:53 AM PDT by ContemptofCourt

To: ContemptofCourt

> Such a matrix would be difficult to produce.

For you or me, yes.

For the office of the Attorney General or the CRS? No.

For the NY Times or WaPo? No.

They could have it done by close of business today, if they wanted to. One can only assume that they don't want to.

38 posted on 03/21/2007 12:03:02 PM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)

To: ContemptofCourt

"Can you not deal with facts?"

That's pretty ironic coming from you.

Here is a small sampling of your recent "facts" (not counting your howlers just on this thread):

FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to Sam Hill
On News/Activism ^ 03/14/2007 5:06:46 PM EDT · 122 of 138 ^

planning on naming a Clinton USA holdover, other than MJW?
FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to Sam Hill
On News/Activism ^ 03/14/2007 4:52:57 PM EDT · 117 of 138 ^

So, planning on naming a Clinton USA holdover, other than MJW? FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to Sam Hill
On News/Activism ^ 03/14/2007 4:40:42 PM EDT · 111 of 138 ^

And I'm still waiting for you to name a USA holdover retained by Bush. Like I said, I've already done 9 for you.
FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to Sam Hill
On News/Activism ^ 03/14/2007 4:25:38 PM EDT · 100 of 138 ^

Please provide the name of a Clinton USA holdover other than Mary Jo White. FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to Sam Hill
On News/Activism ^ 03/14/2007 4:09:14 PM EDT · 92 of 138 ^

US Attorneys serve for only 4 years. That means that every current US Attorney has been appointed by Bush.
FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to Sam Hill
On News/Activism ^ 03/14/2007 3:59:22 PM EDT · 85 of 138 ^

I have posted on these threads because I want people to understand that the USA's Bush fired are the ones he appointed, and that there are no Clinton USA holdovers in this administration.
FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to Sam Hill
On News/Activism ^ 03/14/2007 3:38:31 PM EDT · 71 of 138 ^

Sammy: You have failed to provide evidence that Bush retained ANY of Clinton's US Attorneys, other than Mary Jo White. You seem sure that he did, so please produce some evidence.
Gonzales: "Mistakes were Made" ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to Stajack
On News/Activism ^ 03/14/2007 11:21:07 AM EDT · 53 of 71 ^

What Bush did in the beginning of his term in 2001 is the same thing that every other president does...gets rid of the old USA's and puts in new ones. How The NYT Covered Reno’s 1993 Firing Of All US Attorneys ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to Homer1
On News/Activism ^ 03/13/2007 3:20:51 PM EDT · 7 of 96 ^

All of Clinton's US Attorneys except for one were gone in Bush's first year.
Rove's role in firings is focus ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to 3AngelaD
On News/Activism ^ 03/12/2007 2:35:31 PM EDT · 28 of 47 ^

The 8 that were fired were all appointed by Bush, and were not holdovers. There was only one holdover. In CO, he appointed Suthers in 2001. Suthers was appointed AG in 2005. Rove's role in firings is focus ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to 3AngelaD
On News/Activism ^ 03/12/2007 2:11:05 PM EDT · 21 of 47 ^

What are you talking about? Bush retained one US Attorney and cleaned the rest out in 2001, including in CO, where he appointed John Suthers.
Fired Attorneys Allude to Justice Threat (US Attorneys refuse to prosecute Democrats) ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to Osage Orange
On News/Activism ^ 03/07/2007 3:51:04 PM EST · 97 of 115 ^

None of the current US Attorneys are Clinton holdovers. I think there may have been two Clinton holdovers...one was Mary Jo White, who resigned in 2002.
Fired Attorneys Allude to Justice Threat (US Attorneys refuse to prosecute Democrats) ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to lawdude
On News/Activism ^ 03/07/2007 2:55:06 PM EST · 89 of 115 ^

That is just untrue. Show me proof. Article after article has commented how klinton is the only president to fire ALL 92 US attorneys.
Show me that article. Oh, and its 93 US Attorneys.
Fired Attorneys Allude to Justice Threat (US Attorneys refuse to prosecute Democrats) ^
Posted by ContemptofCourt to litehaus
On News/Activism ^ 03/07/2007 10:20:33 AM EST · 25 of 115 ^

Good grief....all of Clinton's US Attorneys resigned when Bush took office.

39 posted on 03/21/2007 12:06:48 PM PDT by Sam Hill

To: ContemptofCourt

Such a matrix would be difficult to produce. It took me 2 days to determine who Bush appointed. Finding Clinton's appointees was even harder.

The CRS was having a difficult time coming up with this type of information, too, and asked the Justice Department for help. In the materials sent to Congress this week, there's a listing of all U.S. Attorneys from 1789 to 1994 from the The Bicentennial Celebration of the United States (See the first page of this document).

Of course, that doesn't even take us through the terms of most of Clinton's appointees, since most of those who left for whatever reason served their full 4-year terms and wouldn't have started leaving until around 1997 or 1998.

40 posted on 03/21/2007 12:11:33 PM PDT by conservative in nyc

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794