Tom Hanson and I will discuss national politics – the war, the economy, the firing of attorneys (there’s a special place in Hell for anyone who fires attorneys!), the 2008 run, etc. I want to take advantage of Tom while he’s still around. He plans to leave in May, and I have April’s show all booked up for the hospital tax issue, leaving two shows with Tom which could be the last in a while.
As always, the show is All Things Reconsidered (never did hear from NPR’s attorneys), on KMUD tomorrow (Thursday) night from 7 to 8 p.m. We’ll take calls probably 20 to 30 minutes into the show.
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 15, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Anonymous
I was unable to listen last night. Did you discuss the March 1993 firing of ALL 93 US Attorneys by then President Clinton under advice from Web Hubbell and Mrs. Bill Clinton?
March 15, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Mr. Greenjeans
Ah, there it is. It’s Clinton’s fault.
March 15, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Mr. Greenjeans
President Clinton did hire new US Attorneys and then so did George W. Bush at the beginning of his presidency but the difference is that Bush is firing the US Attorneys that he appointed because they were uncovering Republican the crime spree and they would not quit. For conservatives to argue, as many are now, that Clinton’s routine replacements for H.W. Bush’s USAs is any way similar is the height of intellectual dishonesty. They know better, but hope their audience is too uninformed to know the difference.
Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta said last week that the entire argument is “pure fiction.” “Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys (Bush’s) received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings. We’re used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, it’s also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior.”
According to “Talking Points Memo” the White House “considered firing all the US Attorneys at the beginning of Bush’s second term. That would have been unprecedented but not an abuse of power in itself. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president.”
“And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys. That always happens. Always…. The whole thing is silly. But a lot of reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired — a) because they weren’t pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, that’s a miscarriage of justice, and b) because they lied to Congress about why it happened.”
“If the “Clinton did it” defense is the best you can do, this scandal must be truly horrifying.”
March 15, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Anonymous
You lefties are misinterpreting the comparisons to Bill C. It is not that two wrongs make a right. It is the media’s hypocrisy with respect to how it treated both incidents. But, of course, it is hard for lefties to see the hypocrisy because lefties do not even want to admit that there is any media bias.
March 15, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Anonymous
What is Tom Hanson’s claim to fame anyway?
March 15, 2007 at 4:08 pm
artslut
oh no, no more Tom, bye bye. Also, Hank Sims makes his radio debut, 6-7 Thursday nite on KHUM.
March 15, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Eric V. Kirk
The show is tonight.
And I don’t remember the Clinton controversy, but he did plenty that I find objectionable. Still, he hasn’t been in power for 6 years. I wonder if the current economic troubles are his fault.
March 15, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Mr. Greenjeans
Thu Mar 15, 09:05:00 AM
Well of course there is media bias. Faux “News” is as bias as they come. There is no dispute of that. What I don’t understand is the rest of your post. “Two wrongs don’t make a right?” I’m sorry I am too stupid to understand what two wrongs you are talking about. “It is the media’s hypocrisy with respect to how it treated both incidents.” I think there are three incidents here. The Clinton’s replacement of the U.S. Attorneys when the Clinton Administration came in (which apparently happens all the time when new presidents take office), the Bush replacement of the Clinton era’s U.S. Attorneys (which apparently happens all the time when new presidents take office) and the Bush firing of the Bush Attorneys for reasons that are a) because they weren’t pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, which congress, the Democrats, and the American people consider a miscarriage of justice (even Bush has said it was wrong), and b) because they lied to Congress about why it happened. Why is it so difficult for the right to understand simple concepts?
March 15, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Anonymous
Eric, your ability to brush aside a simple and direct question is admittedly impressive, but it doesn’t wash. Perhaps the reason you don’t remember the Clinton controversy is because the media and their partners in the Democratic party didn’t fabricate one.
March 15, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Eric V. Kirk
More likely it’s because it was 13 years ago.
I also think it’s a little different. He wanted a clean slate from the previous administration. The issues are a bit more involved with Bush, as Mr. Greenjeans points out.
March 15, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Anonymous
Citing Mr. Greenjeans as a source is laughable as is your dismissal of the Clinton action as merely wanting a clean slate.
All of these appointments are political as “they serve at the pleasure of the President” and they always have been. This is nothing more than the latest scandal du jour.
The true crime is the Washington Republicans reluctance to get down and dirty and fight the Democrats in the trenches. Really pathetic.
March 15, 2007 at 8:50 pm
ED Denson
Like many at will employers, the Feds can fire for no reason, but not for the wrong reason.
March 15, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Mr. Greenjeans
Well Mr. Anonymous Alberto, during the January 18th hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, pompously declared, “I would never ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or that in any way would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.”
March 15, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Mr. Greenjeans
“I would never ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or that in any way would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.”
Was he lying< when he said it?
The bottom line or at least a line down near the bottom Mr. Anonymous, is that the Republicans should have thought about repercussions when they impeached Clinton for a hummer in the White House. Payback is a bitch. And hopefully it is only beginning.
March 15, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Anonymous
Hopefully, the heretofore chickenshit Washington Republicans will start ratfucking the Democrats back. (Remember that Watergate term?)
March 16, 2007 at 4:24 am
Eric V. Kirk
I remember it well. We lawyers have to pass an ethics exam prior to sitting the bar as a result.
March 16, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Anonymous
The words “ethics” and “lawyers” shouldn’t be mentioned in the same sentence.
March 17, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Anonymous
Original.