Exploding the Clinton-Did-It Defense

[babylonsister]

http://consortiumnews.com/2007/041207a.html

Exploding the Clinton-Did-It Defense

By Jerry Sanford
April 12, 2007

Editor’s Note: One of the questions from the furor over the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys is how unusual the move was. Some Republicans argue that Bill Clinton did much worse by removing all 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office.

In this guest essay, veteran federal prosecutor Jerry Sanford addresses the Clinton-did-it defense:

snip//

In other words, the Bush administration fired almost as many U.S. attorneys in one week as had been let go over the past 25 years. The only apparent "misconduct" of the eight Bush appointees was their failure to prosecute Democrats before last year's mid-term election.

Frankly, I am outraged and disgusted by the conduct of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other high Justice Department and White House officials in the administration's U.S. attorney political purge. Their lies before congressional committees should be met with perjury charges.

The legal and ethical issues surrounding the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys, who have been subjected to smear campaigns and groundless accusations, demand a full inquiry into the misconduct and possible criminal actions of certain members of Congress, the Justice Department and the White House.

If evidence reveals that anyone interfered with an investigation in a U.S. attorney's office, obstruction of justice charges should be brought.

The worst President in history appointed an incompetent, corrupt and dishonest Attorney General, and that act resulted in a spreading stain on the Department of Justice.

Alberto Gonzales, with no experience as a prosecutor or in law enforcement, has done nothing but ratify and sanction George W. Bush's violations of federal law. His immediate removal, or resignation, would be a start in eradicating that stain and returning integrity to the Department of Justice.

[Demeter]

1. Is There a Link, Please?

[babylonsister]

2. Of course, sorry; it's here and edited in OP:

http://consortiumnews.com/2007/041207a.html

[SharonAnn]

8. Shouldn't it say "GWB fired 93 when he took over, just like former presidents did."

What's different about this case is that he fired 8 well into his second term, but AFTER the Patriot Act II passage meant that he wouldn't have to submit them to the Senate for approval. These were likely not candidates that would get Senate approval nor would the Senate let the firing of the 8 go by without much comment.

Since Senate approval is no longer required, GWB can now appoint any partisan person he wants without any oversight. This means that he can appoint partisans who overlook the crimes of friends and invent crimes to accuse enemies of.

He fired all the U.S. Attorneys when he took over in 2001 and replace them with Republicans.

Remember, the key thing now is no oversight and no Senate approval. No oversight!

[quiet.american]

3. Dupe

[babylonsister]

5. I searched and didn't see this posted...

:shrug:

[quiet.american]

6. We both posted the link at the same time = my "Dupe". Cheers. n/t

[babylonsister]

7. Gotcha; thanks. nt

[C_U_L8R]

4. That's like Imus's "spike lee did it" defense

it has nothing to do with anything