But Clinton Did It! (Oops! So Did Reagan)
Related:update: 8.40 am Pacific
Clinton Talking Point Originated At DOJ and On Bi-Partisan Vote, Senate Strips 2006 Patriot Act Change
According to the elder Bush’s outgoing Attorney General, Stuart M. Gerson, Clinton did what Reagan did -- cleaned house at the Department of Justice upon taking office. (Never mind that it’s not what GWB has done.):
The Reagan administration, for example, acted in its own interests much the same as the Clinton administration had in its when it sought the prompt removal of all U.S. Attorneys from the previous administration, notwithstanding the fact that most of the persons whose nominations were to be submitted had not been selected and many interim persons would be required.Original Post: 9 am 14 March
The latest meme on the firing of eight US Attorneys is that Clinton did it in 1993, so why is <Congress or The Press or The Democrats ... pick your favorite scapegoat> picking on President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales?
Gonzales admits "mistakes were made" (on process, not the terminations) ... and this "but Clinton did it" rebuttal is concurrently racing through the blogosphere and the media space.
You know it's a meme when a phrase or two shows up everywhere. In this case, it's but Janet Reno fired all 93 when Clinton took office! So why are you getting your knickers in a knot over eight?
Here's why that argument doesn't wash.
First, it ignores (and helps everyone continue to forget) that the Bush White House got a clause slipped into a massive bill, on the sly during conference, that gave Bush the right to appoint replacements and not have them be confirmed by the Senate.
This clause also changed the process for how/who picks replacements mid-term. Prior to PL 109-177, if a US Attorney resigned before the end of his term, the Court nominated an interim US attorney until the Senate acted on a Presidential nomination.
This legislative gotcha (complaining about the conference process is another story) enabled Bush to fire any of the 93 US attorneys and appoint replacements for a two-year term with no Congressional oversight.
According to the Chicago Tribune, the Bush Administration, in the person of Harriet Miers, did propose firing all 93 after his re-election two years ago. Gonzales said it wasn't practical but approved the concept -- on a smaller scale. Yet his office did nothing until after this little clause was inserted into the Patriot Act reauthorization conference bill.
There may have been eyebrows raised at the firing of all 93 in one fell swoop -- or maybe not. After all, every replacement would have been confirmed by Congress.
This was premeditated, contrived, political. Isn't the timing of Miers' departure just a little suspect, knowing what we know today -- two months later?
Second, one of the first appointees was a (legal) political hack whose career was spent digging up dirt on people for Karl Rove and the national Republican Party.
Third, Congress is specifically prohibited from trying to influence the actions of a US Attorney. See New Mexico. And now the White House is admitting to passing along congressional complaints to DOJ. You guys need to get your stories straight.
Fourth, legal scholars on all sides are protesting.
Don't let this slight of hand meme cause you to take your eyes off the power-grab ball.
See- AttorneyGate Timeline
- Patriot Act Changed The Rules on US Attorney Appointments
- How Congress Changed The Rules On US Attorney Appointments
- Text of SB 214 - Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007 (Reported in Senate)
- The Strong-Arm Ideology & Philosophy of Alberto Gonzales, US Liberals
- Dump Alberto Gonzales, and Let the Healing Commence, US Liberals
- Why Gonzales Must Resign, Civil Liberties
Comments
What happened to the Conservative Forum? It appears there has not been on update on the blog since Feb.
Hi, Marcus:
There is a search for a new guide to conservative politics. In the interim, the conservative forum has been closed; we’ve learned the hard way that unmoderated political forums quickly devolve into, erh, chaos.
So the clause that gives Bush the power to name replacements w/o congressional oversight was “slipped into” (sic) PL 109-177 during conference. It must have been o.k. with the Democrats in the House and Senate, so what’s the problem?
They “didn’t have time” to read it? 277 pages isn’t “War and Peace” and Senate staffers could use division of labor to get the gist of it in the TWO AND A HALF MONTHS (!) after the House passed it.
Can one say “tempest in a teapot”?
It seems to me that Bush’s action were less f a “power grab” and more of a exercise in remarkable restraint. I very much doubt the democrats could have resisted loading their bedmates into the positions.
Hi, Henry:
How can it be restraint … when it was Bush who got the law changed?
When the DOJ staffer in charge of all of this writes in an e-mail that Tim Griffin may not be the best person with which to test the new law?
Since no Democratic president tried to get the law changed to circumvent advise and consent … I can’t follow your logic.
Note: I have written elsewhere the “I didn’t know it was there” is a poor excuse … however, I also understand that the system is rigged to slip stuff in because Congress critters can’t afford to vote “no” on a bill … due to the pressure of sound bite politics.
IMO, the system is sorely broken.
The latest bill on defunding the war is another example of being “broken.”
hey bushies, yes clinton did it, but if you want to check some facts and not just fox news, you’ll find that g. w. bush also did it. in fact, all of these eight were originally appointed by him after he took office in 2001.