Comments (145)

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 12:44 PM:

After his re-election, Clinton did replace more than 10% of the very same U.S. Attorneys he had brought on after firing all the holdovers at the beginning of his term -- not all at once though -- I guess it was more artful (or, there were bigger fish to fry with Monica, Travelgate, etc.)?

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 12:54 PM:

Jake,

Are you incapable of reading the question? The question asked was "... IN THE MIDDLE OF A TERM"

Your answer applies to the start of a second term.

Are you stupid, or sloppy?

hayden wrote on July 11, 2007 12:55 PM:

So she can't remember what she had for breakfast. Haven't we been hearing that type of line a lot lately? "Mr. Libby, what did VP Cheney tell you about [whatever]?" "I don't know, I can't even remember what I had for breakfast last week." "General Gonzales, when did you decide to fire the 9 USA's?" "I don't know - I can't even remember what I had for breakfast last week." "So, Mr. Pilate, did you have evidence to crucify Jesus?" " Gosh, I don't remember - I can't even remember what I had for breakfast last week." You see? It's very convenient, and applies to all scenario's.

Lee wrote on July 11, 2007 12:55 PM:

Jake,

Who were they and when were they "fired"? I don't buy your story, not for even a minute.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 12:56 PM:

Here are just a few of those replacements:

1997: Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, and Sharon Zealey.

1998: Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera.

1999: Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee.

2000: Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.

Mike in Austin wrote on July 11, 2007 12:56 PM:

That's all you got, Jake? Monica and Travelgate?

Fred M. wrote on July 11, 2007 12:57 PM:

Were those mid-term replacements? Also, were they replaced solely for political reasons and for not putting party before country?

Also, please quit trying to equate a blowjob and mythical scandals with true corruption and abuse of power.

Lee wrote on July 11, 2007 12:59 PM:

Jake,

I don't buy your story. Not even for a minute. Who were the prosecutors Clinton fired/replaced and why did they leave their offices? If there was even a whiff of truth to what you're saying the Republicans would have trotted the information out long, long ago.

Xenos wrote on July 11, 2007 1:00 PM:

Did I just hear her claim her conversations with reporters are covered by executive privilege?

ManOutOfTIme wrote on July 11, 2007 1:00 PM:

The number of Clinton-appointed-then-replaced USA's was probably part of discussions when the Bushies were figuring out how many they could get away with firing. I mean, it is kind of arbitrary, right? We know they contemplated firing ALL of them, but that was too many. Then they needed some minimum cover for whoever it was they really wanted to fire (Lam?). So what's the standard? How many did Clinton fire? How about Reagan?

Honestly. What a bunch of hacks.

Fred M. wrote on July 11, 2007 1:06 PM:

It is also important to remember that the Bushies were wanting to use the new provisions of the Patriot Act to allow them to appoint political hacks without Senate oversight.

David B. wrote on July 11, 2007 1:06 PM:

Does anybody else think that she sounds just a wee bit hung over or maybe just she couldn't sleep last night.

Ron R. wrote on July 11, 2007 1:07 PM:

The question has never been, "Did Clinton (or previous presidents) ever fire a federal prosecutor?"

This is about the Bush White House's concerted effort to purge the system of attorneys who would not pursue bogus voter fraud claims and use their positions for partisan political purposes.

It's really that simple. It's part of a pattern by this administration and its (dwindling) allies to increase the strength and length of their power. See: K Street Project, Texas Redistricting, uh, anything Dick Cheney has done.

It's part of the Permanent Republican Majority plan. Thankfully, it hasn't worked out so well.

But the looming question always remains: What DON'T we know about?

bo wrote on July 11, 2007 1:08 PM:

Republicanism causes early-onset Alzheimer.

bo wrote on July 11, 2007 1:08 PM:

Republicanism causes early-onset Alzheimer.

Lee wrote on July 11, 2007 1:09 PM:

Sorry for the double posting above. It didn't show up for a while after it should have.

Now, Jake I know you are making this up because you list Audrey Fleissig. She was a career prosecutor appointed to the post who didn't really want the job. It was always well known (as in: it was in the newspaper) that from day one that she accepted the post with the understanding she would not stay in it very long and that was her choice and intention. She was not fired or replaced by the Clinton administration.

You are a good troll Jake. Loyal and willing to do anything as long as, apparently, it doesn't involve telling the truth.

Fred M. wrote on July 11, 2007 1:10 PM:

In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Sad to say, Jake, but you (along with about 25% of our population) seem to fall into the second category.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 1:11 PM:

last i checked, no previous administration fired a US Attorney who was in the middle of an investigation that led to an idictment of the #3 at the CIA.

benjoya wrote on July 11, 2007 1:12 PM:

jake, you got a link for that? (rhetorical question -- of course you don't)

firing all the holdovers at the beginning of his term

you left out "like reagan and both bushes did"

dfong63 wrote on July 11, 2007 1:12 PM:

nice to know that in her mind, firing a bunch of USA's is no more significant than what she had for breakfast last week.

Peter Duffy wrote on July 11, 2007 1:13 PM:

Goodling and Taylor barbecued.

Harriet Miers up next.

When will the loyal Bushie Babes catch on that they are cannon fodder for Bush Cheney Rove.

Who said it was a womans' world.

Dennis wrote on July 11, 2007 1:13 PM:

Here we are, both sides playing the game of "chicken" - who will blink first.

If Bush wins this, our country will always be at the mercy of whoever occupies the White House.

In times past, when these confrontational episodes occured between the White House and Congress, they were worked out so that the issues of checks and balances between these two branches of government were not thrown to the Supreme Court to decide.

But, if ever there was an issue, or a time, when the American people got an honest look at their government, including the Supreme Court, it's this issue and this time.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

breakspear wrote on July 11, 2007 1:13 PM:

I guess since she can't remember pretty much anything it's a good thing she's no longer employed with the government as she was clearly useless, to any degree. Not surprising.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 1:17 PM:

What a shock -- Jake is full of shit.

In 1985, Denise O'Donnell became an Assistant United States Attorney. In 1998, President Bill Clinton appointed her the US Attorney for the Western District of New York. While working for the US Attorney's office she worked on two particularly prominent cases. The first was the investigation into Oklahoma City bomber and Pendleton, NY native Timothy McVeigh. She was also the leader in the successful prosecution of anti-abortion extremist James Kopp for the murder of obstratician and abortion provider Barnett Slepian. She was pushed out of her position as US attorney by the Bush administration before her term had ended. Many speculate that this was because the Bush administration was displeased with her efforts in prosecuting Kopp.

--Wikipedia

And I only googled one of Jake's examples.

putnam wrote on July 11, 2007 1:20 PM:

What you ate for breakfast last week is not a difficult thing to remember. People don't usually go for great variety and exoticism in their breakfast fare.

She's just a complete liar.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 1:23 PM:

Googling one of Jake's examples

In 1985, Denise O'Donnell became an Assistant United States Attorney. In 1998, President Bill Clinton appointed her the US Attorney for the Western District of New York. While working for the US Attorney's office she worked on two particularly prominent cases. The first was the investigation into Oklahoma City bomber and Pendleton, NY native Timothy McVeigh. She was also the leader in the successful prosecution of anti-abortion extremist James Kopp for the murder of obstetrician and abortion provider Barnett Slepian. She was pushed out of her position as US attorney by the Bush administration before her term had ended. Many speculate that this was because the Bush administration was displeased with her efforts in prosecuting Kopp.

Canuck Stuck in Muck wrote on July 11, 2007 1:25 PM:

Isn't it possible she was also asked to take a loyalty oath?

Troll Patrol wrote on July 11, 2007 1:26 PM:

"trolls4jake" - Coming soon....at the cafe.

Post your complaints there.

And keep the threads clean!

AJ wrote on July 11, 2007 1:29 PM:

Googling a Jake example.

MELVIN W. KAHLE, JR. was born in Wheeling, West Virginia. He received his Bachelor of Arts Degree from West Virginia University in 1958 and his Juris Doctorate in 1964 from Cleveland - Marshall College of Law, the same year he was admitted to the Bar. Mr. Kahle practiced law from 1964 until 1993, when he was elected (and re-elected in 1997) Prosecuting Attorney of Ohio County. In 1999, he was appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia and served until 2001. Mr. Kahle also served as President, Ohio County Board of Education, Judge of Moot Court, West Virginia University College of Law, Instructor of Real Estate, West Virginia State College. He was also a United States Air Force Judge Advocate and Navigator/Radar Intercept Officer.

Kahle served as USA until 2001 -- looks like Clinton wasn't the one who got rid of him.

Bruce wrote on July 11, 2007 1:30 PM:

So is everyone at DOJ either a liar or a moron? It seems that way.

Rob wrote on July 11, 2007 1:31 PM:

It seems Jake (now Jake D.) has taken up residence here at TPM. May I make the suggestion that this guy simply be ignored.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 1:31 PM:

Last time I checked a calendar, 1998 and 1999 were in the MIDDLE of Clinton's second term.

P.S. Lee -- how is it "trolling" to post on topic that Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys in the middle of his term too? I never said that Audrey Fleissig was replaced or fired -- she replaced Edward L. Dowd, Jr. (whom Clinton had appointed as U.S. Attorney at the beginning of his first term). Those are all the names of mid-term replacements above. Sorry for the confusion.

RickD wrote on July 11, 2007 1:32 PM:

Jake: You are not a serious person. Did, at any point, President Clinton fire a USA who had been appointed by him but was involved in investigating corruption within his own party? Who had, indeed, already secured the conviction of a Congressman in his own party?

Did President Clinton appoint anybody to a USA position who was purely an "oppo research" guy?

gcs wrote on July 11, 2007 1:33 PM:

People, people, please. Let's not let that paid troll/RNC hack derail the conversation yet again with thet total horseshit he keeps throwing at us day after day after day. Just ignore him, or at least post the truth and expose his lies, but for God's sake don't answer it. That's what it wants - for us to get so caught up in cleaning up the shit he keeps throwing until we forget what it was we were discussing. By now we should be onto Rove's scumbag tricks, even when they're picked up by some loser whose biggest acocmplishment is being an anonymous nobody.

M. Stratas wrote on July 11, 2007 1:33 PM:

These underlings have done a good job of copying their boss, clueless and dumb. There will be great celebration when Bush Cheney leave. America will be bright and small and will be a shining example of a good society.

JNagarya wrote on July 11, 2007 1:36 PM:

That's all you got, Jake? Monica and Travelgate?

Posted by: Mike in Austin
Date: July 11, 2007 12:56 PM

Exactly as had Ken Starr, "Jake" only has Monica, because "Travelgate" was yet-another-fake-scandal Republican smear.

That's why we heard about Monica: that's all there was.

SC = sheep. As in, "Jake" is a lying sheeple.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 1:37 PM:

Denise O'Donnell and Melvin Kahle replaced U.S. Attorneys who had already been appointed by Clinton at the beginning of his first term -- that's why I grouped them by year -- as I said, those names are the REPLACEMENTS. Again, sorry for any confusion.

Gramma Millie wrote on July 11, 2007 1:37 PM:

Awful curious how these Bushies have memory lapses when being questioned by political adversaries.

It's curious because they never forget to use fear to advance their interests.

It's curious because they never forget to blame a current problem on Clinton.

It's curious because they never forget to put party ahead of nation.

And it's curious because they never forget to put Dear Leader ahead of all other things (even party).

AJ wrote on July 11, 2007 1:37 PM:

Alejandro Mayorkas also served until 2001.

Better trolls please.

oldtree wrote on July 11, 2007 1:39 PM:

an oath to the president is illegal to ask for, and it is treason to agree to such an oath.
this was enough to have her arrested, what happened?

the real cookie wrote on July 11, 2007 1:39 PM:

breakspear - my exact impression. A real Lucy Ricardo on the candy assembly line.

kbcart wrote on July 11, 2007 1:39 PM:

This isn't about the US Attorneys, but....

Taylor said the things she was told NOT to speak about at the direction of The Chimperor. Since Taylor is now a private citizen, why does she have to listen to The Chimp? Does The Chimp even have the legal authority (yeah, like it matters) to order a private citizen around as to what they can and can't say?

Just curious....

Unmitigated Audacity wrote on July 11, 2007 1:40 PM:

There seems to be a limitless supply of vacuous, Stepford Bush Bimbos. Perhaps the Great Sorcerer Rove has perfected a Neo-con brain-emptying drug, no doubt topically applied, mixed with peroxide.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 1:44 PM:

don't miss the bigger point: none of the US Attorneys that may have been replaced by reagen, bush 1, or clinton had the "benefit" of the provision that sidestepped the senate's role in the process—you know, the provision that had to be snuck into the Patriot Act at the last minute in the middle of the night by a republican operative. does that sound remotely like democracy to anybody?

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 1:45 PM:

"Jake, Are you incapable of reading the question?"

JakeD is perfectly capable of reading the question.

What he is incapable of is telling the truth.

Much like Taylor and Gonzales, the only difference being that JakeD isn't under oath and isn't committing perjury by lying.

But lying he is nevertheless.

JNagarya wrote on July 11, 2007 1:46 PM:

I'm sure "Jake" will be informing us of what Taylor had for breakfast last week, in effort to pretend it has been a topic of considerable national attention among Democrats who are "out-to-get" Republicans for their perfectly normal and legal dietary habbits.

And if that doesn't work as a distraction, he'll attempt a "Clinton did it too!" two-wrongs-make-a-right "argument" based upon one or another Republican lied-into-being fake Clinton scandal.

SteveW wrote on July 11, 2007 1:46 PM:

Okay, Jake and Jake D are clearly the same individual, because their posts are of the exact same thread...Bush is great and does no wrong.

Just ignore this turd.

foggylady wrote on July 11, 2007 1:47 PM:

Please !!!!!!!

Do Not Feed The Trolls.

I have always appreciated this blog because of the intelligent insightful comments.

Feeding trolls clutters up the comments section and detracts from topics at hand.

ty...... :)

bjobotts wrote on July 11, 2007 1:51 PM:

No wonder she wasn't worried and wanted to testity. It's the always successful "I don't recall" strategy. The WH is laughing their asses off. God are these senators and congressmen stupid or what. They still live under the assumption that people in this administration will be cooperative if they just put a little pressure on them.
They will get the same from Miers, Rove, Cheney, even the President. What did they expect?

Daniel wrote on July 11, 2007 1:55 PM:

Look, I can't stand Bush and am a staunch Democrat, but JakeD. was asked to name the U.S. Attorneys that were replaced under Clinton, so he did. His post does not say they were fired, or anything else, he just provided a list of U.S. Attorneys who were replaced.

There was no evidence that Clinton did anything improper with the U.S. Attorneys, unlike Bush, but let's not play the Republican smear-tactic of constantly assuming the worst and refusing to read his post. Yes, he does IMPLY the worst about Clinton, but his list is merely a list.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 1:56 PM:

I looked up the very first name on Jake's list. Beverly B. Martin was indeed releaved of her position as USA and appointed to the federal bench! Two down. This is very intertaining....

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release March 27, 2000
PRESIDENT CLINTON NOMINATES ROGER L. HUNT AND
BEVERLY B. MARTIN TO THE FEDERAL BENCH

The President today nominated Roger L. Hunt to the U.S. District

Court for the District of Nevada, and Beverly B. Martin to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Roger L. Hunt, of Henderson, Nevada, has been a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Nevada since 1992. Prior to joining the federal judiciary, Hunt served as a senior partner, partner, and associate at the law firm of Edwards, Hunt, Hale and Hansen and its predecessor firms from 1971 to 1992. He was also a Deputy District Attorney for the Clark County District Attorney's Office from 1970 to 1971. Hunt received his B.A. degree from Brigham Young University in 1966, and his J.D. degree, with honors, from George Washington University in 1970.

Beverly B. Martin, of Macon, Georgia, has been the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia since 1998. Prior to becoming United States Attorney, Martin served as Acting United States Attorney (1997-1998) and as an Assistant United States Attorney (1994-1997) with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Georgia. She previously was an Assistant Attorney General for the State Law Department of the Georgia Attorney General's Office from 1984 to 1994, and worked as an associate at Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier from 1981 to 1984. Martin received her B.A. degree from Stetson University in 1976, and her J.D. degree from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1981.

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:21 -0500
From: The White House To: White-House-Publications@pub.pub.whitehouse.gov Subject: 2000-03-27 President Nominates Hunt and Martin to the Federal Bench Keywords: District-Of-Columbia, Executive-Act, Florida, Georgia,

Government, Judicial-System, Mid-Atlantic-Region,
Mountain-States-Region, Nevada, Nomination, Personnel,
South-Region, Utah, West-Region

Message-Id: Document-ID: pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/3/28/7.text.1

AJ wrote on July 11, 2007 1:56 PM:

If a troll states an opinion, fine. Ignore.

If a troll states a fact, rebut with the truth.

That's not feeding the troll. It's castrating him.

dg wrote on July 11, 2007 1:57 PM:

I looked up the very first name on Jake's list. Beverly B. Martin was indeed releaved of her position as USA and appointed to the federal bench! Two down. This is very intertaining....

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release March 27, 2000
PRESIDENT CLINTON NOMINATES ROGER L. HUNT AND
BEVERLY B. MARTIN TO THE FEDERAL BENCH

The President today nominated Roger L. Hunt to the U.S. District

Court for the District of Nevada, and Beverly B. Martin to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Roger L. Hunt, of Henderson, Nevada, has been a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Nevada since 1992. Prior to joining the federal judiciary, Hunt served as a senior partner, partner, and associate at the law firm of Edwards, Hunt, Hale and Hansen and its predecessor firms from 1971 to 1992. He was also a Deputy District Attorney for the Clark County District Attorney's Office from 1970 to 1971. Hunt received his B.A. degree from Brigham Young University in 1966, and his J.D. degree, with honors, from George Washington University in 1970.

Beverly B. Martin, of Macon, Georgia, has been the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia since 1998. Prior to becoming United States Attorney, Martin served as Acting United States Attorney (1997-1998) and as an Assistant United States Attorney (1994-1997) with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Georgia. She previously was an Assistant Attorney General for the State Law Department of the Georgia Attorney General's Office from 1984 to 1994, and worked as an associate at Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier from 1981 to 1984. Martin received her B.A. degree from Stetson University in 1976, and her J.D. degree from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1981.

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:21 -0500
From: The White House To: White-House-Publications@pub.pub.whitehouse.gov Subject: 2000-03-27 President Nominates Hunt and Martin to the Federal Bench Keywords: District-Of-Columbia, Executive-Act, Florida, Georgia,

Government, Judicial-System, Mid-Atlantic-Region,
Mountain-States-Region, Nevada, Nomination, Personnel,
South-Region, Utah, West-Region

Message-Id: Document-ID: pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/3/28/7.text.1

EH wrote on July 11, 2007 1:57 PM:

Why you people continue to respond to Jake, who is willfully obtuse as to the topic he is replying to, is beyond me. Are you all new to the internet or something?

JNagarya wrote on July 11, 2007 1:58 PM:

P.S. Lee -- how is it "trolling" to post on topic that Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys in the middle of his term too? I never said that Audrey Fleissig was replaced or fired -- she replaced Edward L. Dowd, Jr. (whom Clinton had appointed as U.S. Attorney at the beginning of his first term). Those are all the names of mid-term replacements above. Sorry for the confusion.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 11, 2007 1:31 PM

It is trolling to constantly post off-topic. The topic of this thread is Bushit criminal enterprise moll Sara Taylor, not Clinton.

Too complicated for you to comprehend? Or simply too unavoidant of the topic?

Congress -- and We the people -- have Taylor emails in which, as example, she is participating in the efforts to mislead Congress about the US AGs firings. Misleading means lying. It is a felony to lie to Congress.

If there's nothing to hide, then why lie in effort to hide it?

None of those facts can legitimately or honestly include the name Clinton.

theWalrus wrote on July 11, 2007 2:00 PM:

Taylor gave quite a performnace today. She lied beautifully and said "I don't recall" more times than Gonzo! Guinness Book needs a new category.

Worse that Taylor, though, was Arlen Specter who *admitted* to leading the witness, going far beyond just rehabilitating her and also revealing that he spoke with and coached Gonzo before his testimony! Disgraceful.

There was certainly enough cause from today to cite Taylor for contempt and apparently it is being considered - Spector pulled out all the stops at the end to mitigate her testimony. You have to see it to believe it.

If she is not cited then my hunch that NOBODY will be held accountable for this scandal will appear correct.

mo2 wrote on July 11, 2007 2:04 PM:

Donations for a hair tie or possibly a hair net are being accepted at After Thoughts Accessories and Beauty Supplies on Capitol Avenue through the end of the week.

JJF wrote on July 11, 2007 2:05 PM:

Jake D. gave the names of some replacement US Attorneys. I have no idea if the list is accurate. It would help if he cited a source.

But those names are really beside the point anyway. The question is who were the USAs before them, and why did those people leave their jobs. Were they fired? And if so, were the firings political or performance-related?

People leave jobs for lots of reasons. Some get promoted. Some find other opportunities. Over the course of eight years, you would expect some attrition. Because an attorney is replaced is no evidence that anything untoward occurred.

About the Bush firings, however, we know this: one, the attorneys were fired or forced to resign, and two, the firings appear to be politically motivated.

No evidence suggests that Clinton did the same thing. If Jake D. wants to provide that evidence, let him go ahead. The ball is in his court.

Ritchie wrote on July 11, 2007 2:06 PM:

I don't think its a bad idea for people to respond to trolls. It is good exercise for people in terms of researching an issue and troll claims. Also, how about dividing posts into two parts: 1) Thread Response:, 2) Troll Response:?

JNagarya wrote on July 11, 2007 2:06 PM:

Do Not Feed The Trolls.

Posted by: foggylady
Date: July 11, 2007 1:47 PM

Silence is assent.

digitusmedius wrote on July 11, 2007 2:08 PM:

Jake likes to do what a lot of right wingers try to get away with: lie. Well, to be specific, ignore or hide the truth, which is the same thing as lying--according to right wingers, anyway. He counts up all the USAs who may have left, voluntarily or otherwise, during the years in question and says that "Clinton fired them." They think they're clever because other right wingers are happy to fall for it. But when they come up against people who are onto their little games, you see what happens.

Brianm0122 wrote on July 11, 2007 2:08 PM:

Jake,

of those mid-term replacements you cite, how many were fired?

JJF wrote on July 11, 2007 2:09 PM:

Jake D. gave the names of some replacement US Attorneys. I have no idea if the list is accurate. It would help if he cited a source.

But those names are really beside the point anyway. The question is who were the USAs before them, and why did those people leave their jobs. Were they fired? And if so, were the firings political or performance-related?

People leave jobs for lots of reasons. Some get promoted. Some find other opportunities. Over the course of eight years, you would expect some attrition. Because an attorney is replaced is no evidence that anything untoward occurred.

About the Bush firings, however, we know this: one, the attorneys were fired or forced to resign, and two, the firings appear to be politically motivated.

No evidence suggests that Clinton did the same thing. If Jake D. wants to provide that evidence, let him go ahead. The ball is in his court.

Dabb wrote on July 11, 2007 2:10 PM:

I'm very curious of the exact wording Ms. Taylor took when she took office. Anyone know? Wish one of the senators had asked. I didn't realize that we took oaths to people in this country.

Dabb wrote on July 11, 2007 2:10 PM:

I'm very curious of the exact wording of the oath Ms. Taylor took when she took office. Anyone know? Wish one of the senators had asked. I didn't realize that we took oaths to people in this country.

John Ryan wrote on July 11, 2007 2:11 PM:

Clinton did it first !! Clinton did it first !!
I used to try that defensive tactic with my Mom, but it never seemed to work well.

james wrote on July 11, 2007 2:12 PM:

She was asked if she was aware of wrongdoing regarding politicization and the Attorney firings. She should have then been asked: "Do you believe that firing US Attorneys for political reasons or voter caging is wrong?"

regular lurker wrote on July 11, 2007 2:13 PM:

Wow. Taylor is absolutely scared sh*tless. She is seriously freaked out about answering questions. It's glaringly obvious she's afraid she'll be asked a very specific question.

Any one want to hazard a guess as to what that question is?

Finegan wrote on July 11, 2007 2:17 PM:

Last time I saw a mouth like that, it was trying to suck the salt out of Jim Kirk's neck.

Northern Observer wrote on July 11, 2007 2:17 PM:

The shocked is her slip up.
An oath to the President? Hitler had an oath to the President. Americans swear an oath to the constitution. It is very revealing. It sums up the modern Republican Party.

Steve5117 wrote on July 11, 2007 2:19 PM:

foggylady

Intelligent insight on the asinine antics of this admistration are freguently difficult to stomach. I believe it is better to relieve the irritation with humor than with anger.

To me Sara's performnce was much like Alberto's: convient lack of memory on details; similar phrases used in defending her reason not to talk about a subject; hand gestures and eye movements.

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 2:21 PM:

JakeD: "P.S. Lee -- how is it 'trolling' to post on topic that Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys in the middle of his term too?"

Was it 10% or more or even close to 10%? No.

Was it for political reason? No.

Was Dowd asked to resign? No.

If not, then your post is intentionally disingenuous.

Clinton didn't replace Dowd; Clinton filled a vacant post created when Dowd voluntarily resigned to take another position.

The attorneys fired by Bush/Gonzeles/AnonymousAdministrationLackey were "replaced" (their successors were picked before they even knew they were losing their jobs, they left involuntarily, the reasons for their firing were political and partisan, and they were fired as part of a widespread coordinated purge, not because of unanticipated vacancies.

Spin all you like.

You are still lying and that means you are still trolling.

Sven wrote on July 11, 2007 2:26 PM:

Why should she remember what her oath was, when Bush can't remember that he swore an oath to defend the Constitution? He's said at least once that he's sworn an oath to defend the American people.

I'm surprised, btw, that Taylor can't recall what she had for breakfast when Lurita Doan remembered, several years later, that there were cookies on the table at a meeting.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/28/lurita-cookies-doan/

VietVet67 wrote on July 11, 2007 2:26 PM:

I'll bet she can remember who she was in bed with 2 months ago.

The Educated Bullet wrote on July 11, 2007 2:28 PM:

Just tossing out a google on Gregory Vega. He was still USA as of Jne 2000. What else is untruthful, Jake?

EH wrote on July 11, 2007 2:29 PM:

"Were you aware of wrongdoing?" is the stupidest way to ask that question. You ask about the activities you think were wrong, not something that the respondent can infer that since no judge has ruled it to be improper that they can say that they were not aware of the wrongdoing that has not been defined. If Fredo says it's okay, is it still wrongdoing?

Lee wrote on July 11, 2007 2:30 PM:

As a longtime political operative myself I can tell you that this "I don't recall" stuff is the most outrageous refusal to honestly answer questions I've ever seen. Even back in Nixon's time they didn't just say "I don't recall" to everything or nearly everything as all the Busheviks and Gonzales have about this. Anyone who has been involved in politics at any serious level knows that one of the key things about successful political people whether Democratic or Republican is that they have memories like you wouldn't believe. They all remember the tiniest of details forever and ever and especially if it had to do with something that was on the edge or close to the edge of propriety. Thus, the inability of Gonzales and everyone else involved in this outrageous scandal to remember anything is an obvious and transparent cover up of what was not only unethical, but clearly illegal activity. Gonzales, Sampson, Goodling, Rove and everyone else involved in this should be locked up and held in jail until their trials. And I would add that it is now and has been from the start quite clear to me that the reason Gonzales has survived all this is because he is the key player protecting Bush's direct role in all of this. There has never been a more small-minded, petty, vindictive person in the Presidency. Bush himself was directly and deeply involved in all of the US Attorney firings. It may not be proven while he remains in office, but it won't be too many years before that becomes startlingly clear. As an addendum to that, I believe it will also become clear that Bush was personally and directly involved in Plamegate as well. There has never been another President whose criminal activity even approached the level of this scumbag Bush.

Lee wrote on July 11, 2007 2:31 PM:

As a longtime political operative myself I can tell you that this "I don't recall" stuff is the most outrageous refusal to honestly answer questions I've ever seen. Even back in Nixon's time they didn't just say "I don't recall" to everything or nearly everything as all the Busheviks and Gonzales have about this. Anyone who has been involved in politics at any serious level knows that one of the key things about successful political people whether Democratic or Republican is that they have memories like you wouldn't believe. They all remember the tiniest of details forever and ever and especially if it had to do with something that was on the edge or close to the edge of propriety. Thus, the inability of Gonzales and everyone else involved in this outrageous scandal to remember anything is an obvious and transparent cover up of what was not only unethical, but clearly illegal activity. Gonzales, Sampson, Goodling, Rove and everyone else involved in this should be locked up and held in jail until their trials. And I would add that it is now and has been from the start quite clear to me that the reason Gonzales has survived all this is because he is the key player protecting Bush's direct role in all of this. There has never been a more small-minded, petty, vindictive person in the Presidency. Bush himself was directly and deeply involved in all of the US Attorney firings. It may not be proven while he remains in office, but it won't be too many years before that becomes startlingly clear. As an addendum to that, I believe it will also become clear that Bush was personally and directly involved in Plamegate as well. There has never been another President whose criminal activity even approached the level of this scumbag Bush.

Sven wrote on July 11, 2007 2:32 PM:

PS: Given all the contempt this administration has had for Clinton, isn't it odd that the White House and its defenders keep saying "Clinton did it!" no matter what the issue: the commutation, the attorney firings. Didn't they come into office trumpeting how unlike the previous administration they were going to be?

PMS wrote on July 11, 2007 2:35 PM:

Given all the contempt this administration has had for Clinton, isn't it odd that the White House and its defenders keep saying "Clinton did it!" no matter what the issue: the commutation, the attorney firings.

Clenis Envy.

Lee wrote on July 11, 2007 2:38 PM:

uh, Jake...

Dowd chose to resign to go to work on a special bipartisan commission investigating what happened at Waco, TX with the Koresh crowd. He worked with and for former Republican Sen. John Danforth on that particular investigation.

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 2:39 PM:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:

``I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''

============

Yep. Not a stinkin' thing in that oath about the president.

Of course, this is assuming that Bush has not implemented a secret executive order establishing an oath requirement that demands personal loyalty to the president.

That in itself would in my opinion be an impeachable offense, to demand loyalty to the person holding the office of president above loyalty ot the country.

Code word = army, as in the army of morons that support this out-of-control and illegitimate president.

LTO wrote on July 11, 2007 2:44 PM:

"I don't recall", but doesn't she look like what the cat dragged in after weeks of Repugnican prep?

Louise Delk wrote on July 11, 2007 2:46 PM:

Mr. Alejandro Mayorkas must be really upset about losing his job. That must be why he is donating money to the Hillary for President Campaign (http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/alejandro-mayorkas.asp?cycle=08)

Bill in Chicago wrote on July 11, 2007 3:01 PM:

Looks like "Jake" has been makin' the rounds. Here's a reply from ThinkProgress to the very same list above (you would think these people have never heard of Google):

Nice try at moving the goalposts, “Michael”. The issue is not who was nominated as replacements. The issue is why there were vacancies to fill.

All but two of the names you cited above were chosen to fill positions that had been vacated by voluntary retirements, promotions to judgeships or voluntary moves to private sector positions.

Two USAs were asked to step down during Clinton’s term. One was caught on videotape choking a reporter, the other allegedly bit an exotic dancer in a strip club. I would say those firings were justified.

I know you don’t care, as you’ll just keep swinging this wet towel of a talking point as long as it’s still spraying a little bit of water. But when you come up with a new angle like this one, where you try to manipulate actual facts to create a false impression, you should be smacked down.

But all of this, of course, just distracts from the issue of the thread, which is your primary objective anyway. Remember the issue of the thread? The massive expansion of eligible contacts between the WH and DoJ?

And if you’re NOT Jake or Elizabeth, then you must have at least stumbled on the notes they left behind in the troll booth.

Comment by KRank — April 20, 2007 @ 1:29 pm

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 3:03 PM:

Lee:

That was indeed the "public story" for Dowd's replacement -- Carol Lam took a lucrative position with Quaalcom as well -- no one ever investigated whether Dowd and the others were involuntarily replaced and/or investigating Democrats. BTW: you also never answered how it is "trolling" to simply post ON TOPIC the fact that Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys in the middle of his term?

Peter Principle wrote on July 11, 2007 3:06 PM:

Dabb: "I'm very curious of the exact wording of the oath Ms. Taylor took when she took office."

I think it went something like this:

I swear to thee, Adolph Hitler as Fuhrer and chancellor of the German Reich, my Loyalty and Bravery. I vow to thee and the superiors whom those shall appoint, obedience until death, so help me God.

This isn't the first time this kind of behavior has been noted among the Bush cultists:

"I want you to stand, raise your right hands," and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."

Slate
One Nation Under Bush
October 29, 2004

Then they all sang a rousing chorus of "The Future Belongs to Me"

Peter Principle wrote on July 11, 2007 3:09 PM:

Dabb: "I'm very curious of the exact wording of the oath Ms. Taylor took when she took office."

I think it went something like this:

I swear to thee, Adolph Hitler as Fuhrer and chancellor of the German Reich, my Loyalty and Bravery. I vow to thee and the superiors whom those shall appoint, obedience until death, so help me God.

This isn't the first time this kind of behavior has been noted among the Bush cultists:

"I want you to stand, raise your right hands," and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."

Slate
One Nation Under Bush
October 29, 2004

Then they all sang a rousing chorus of "The Future Belongs to Me"

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 3:10 PM:

Bill in Chicago:

See my reply to Lee -- I also am "Jake" but not Elizabeth -- let me know if you still have any questions : )

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 3:21 PM:

Last I checked, the TITLE of this thread was: "Maybe Clinton Got Away with It?" If the good Senator from Rhode Island didn't know the answer to his question, perhaps he shouldn't have asked it?

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 3:29 PM:

Look, if it will make you all happy, I will agree to a change in the law that no U.S. Attorney can be fired by the President of the United States except for good cause -- is that agreeable?

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 3:50 PM:

JakeD: "BTW: you also never answered how it is "trolling" to simply post ON TOPIC the fact that Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys in the middle of his term?"

Yeah, we did.

And, btw, Dowd didn't disagree with the "public story" (it was his "story" too) about why he left (he was not "replaced" in the sense that the USAs were replaced by Bush), while virtually every USA Bush did in fact replace has disputed the administration's "public story" which makes it the "administration's story" not the "public story."

We didn't need an investigation because Dowd was not "replaced," he was not asked to leave or fired, therefore Clinton did not "replace" a USA in the middle of his term (at least in Dowd's case) but filled a vacancy.

Bush (through his lackey's) didn't fill vacancies; he replaced currently serving attorneys by selecting new USAs for their positions prior to each USA knowing he was being booted.

But you know all this.

You simply choose to lie.

SOP for the GOP.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 3:52 PM:

Hi, Kenny.

Hackistan wrote on July 11, 2007 3:55 PM:

A little googling reveals a remarkable similarity between Jake D's list and a post from WAY back in April on thinkprogress...

now, fun with cut 'n paste...

#

Okay then, putting aside ALL of Clinton’s first term nominations for now, you are seriously claiming that NONE of the following were nominated as U.S. Attorneys based on “political consideration” at all:

1997 — Wilma Lewis, Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, or Sharon Zealey?

1998 — Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, or Jose Rivera?

1999 — Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., Carl Schnee?

2000 — Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, or Audrey Fleissig?

How many were registered Republicans then?

Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 1:15 pm

Security Code: Butter, as in someone should be 'toast'.

Barbara wrote on July 11, 2007 3:56 PM:

If we are going to keep responding to Jake, why not stop calling him names and simply refute his information. I for one do not think everything Democrats do is pure and everything Rebuplicans do is dishonest. However, this administration exemplifies the worst of the worst. It seems like most of the American people are FINALLY beginning to see them for who they are.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 4:14 PM:

Hackistan:

I assume I am not the only person with access to Clinton WHITE HOUSE documents on line. Is that your point?

Barbara:

I don't mind the name-calling -- I would be happy to see you "refute my information" too -- either way is fine with me, see e.g. Kenny, supra.

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 4:22 PM:

"Okay then, putting aside ALL of Clinton’s first term nominations for now, you are seriously claiming that NONE of the following were nominated as U.S. Attorneys based on “political consideration” at all:"

Obviously a strawman.

The issue wasn't whether the USAs were nominated (many of the replacement USAs were not nominated BTW, but were replaced under a Patriot Act provision that was a run-around of the nomination process and many others were destined to be nominated by the same process) for political reasons.

Liberals have never denied that USAs are originally hired by the new administration for just such reasons, just as the USAs from the out-going administrations are fired for political reasons.

No, the issue was that the Bush USAs were fired by the same president who hired them for narrowly-based partisan political reasons that undermined the fair, equitable, and just enforcement of our nation's laws, falsely smeared the reputations of USAs who had performed admirably in virtually every instance, and co-opted DOJ functions for the advancement of partisan electoral success, rather than enforcement of the nation's laws.

Code word = fact; it is a fact that JakeD lies and obsfucates.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 4:22 PM:

simple question for Jake; Which of the USA's you cite were fired? I honestly don't know but you probably do since you're doing the exhaustive research to uncover the truth. I think that's an important distinction if we are to compare apples with apples.

Lee wrote on July 11, 2007 4:23 PM:

Jake,

Your intimation that nobody knows why Dowd "really" resigned because there was no investigation is so stupid it's beyond belief. But, just to make the point: the reason there was no investigation was because there was no reason to investigate you rockheaded troll.

The issue has never been about whether or not Presidents have a legitimate power to replace US Attorneys. It has always been about the abuse of that power by one President in the history of the nation: your Fuhrer--Bush. It never was and I pray to God never will be okay for a President to simply fill US Attorney positions with partisan hacks to achieve partisan aims. That was never the case in our history until this President and his pack of criminals decided to destroy the long-cultivated and highly revered apolitical nature of Federal Prosecutors and their offices.

All along it has been the manipulation of official law enforcement positions for partisan aims that has made this an important issue to the nation. It is self-evident that the mass firing of US Attorneys by Bush was not a legitimate use of the Presidential power of appointment. It is clear to all that this is so unless you are just dumb as a post (of which I've no doubt you are).

The wholesale partisan corruption of the DOJ is the issue that has emerged from the US Attorney firings scandal, which in turn has led to the additional revelations of the partisan manipulation of every Federal department by the pack of criminals in charge of the White House. Even the military and the clandestine services have been corrupted by the out of control partisanship of the Busheviks. Your idiotic assertions fool no one but yourself.

I must say though, that you trolls are really a fascinating lot.

I was unfortunate enough to be in the car yesterday when one of your kind was proudly relating to Limbaugh on the radio how he cleverly made a complaint to OSHA that his local county didn't pay minimum wages for jury duty. He was so proud of himself harrassing the local OSHA person on the telephone about this he could hardly stand it. He thought he really showed em. He even said that he wanted those liberals to know that he would use "their own tactics" to prove their plot to get him to serve jury duty for less than minimum wage was wrong. Limbaugh humored him, of course, acting like somehow this was tremendously clever as opposed to just absurdly idiotic. Your posts on this site are in that league Jake. I wonder sometimes, does it hurt to be that stupid?

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 4:26 PM:

We want to know how many of those mid term Clinton replacements were fired.

tritone wrote on July 11, 2007 4:30 PM:

Look! I can do it too! I checked and of those mid term Clinton replacements, not only were they fired but they were all fired because they were Christians. I think one of them refused to eat babies but that isn't confirmed.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 4:35 PM:

Lee:

I would be happy to answer ALL your questions, as soon as you answer mine -- here it is one last time: how it is "trolling" to simply post ON TOPIC the fact that Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys in the middle of his term?

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 5:05 PM:

JakeD: ". . . how it is "trolling" to simply post ON TOPIC the fact that Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys in the middle of his term?"

Asked and answered.

Move on.

Code word = tight, the opposite of what JakeD's arguments are.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 5:23 PM:

Sorry, Lee, if you answered that question, please just let me know what the timestamp is, because I've reviewed every post of yours on this thread but must have somehow missed that.

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 5:28 PM:

BTW, Clinton actually made new appointments; Bush hasn't filled all of the positions vacated by the fired USAs.

So, Bush hasn't really replaced the USAs and that is not the issue.

The issue, contrary to JakeD's dissembling and dishonest demagoguery, is Bush "firing" of a large number of USAs in the middle of his second term is unprecedented ("asked Taylor whether any other administrations had fired 10% of the U.S. attorneys in the middle of a term"), JakeD's mendacious descriptions of Clinton's actions notwithstanding.

Although already answered in another way, JakeD's input is trolling because it is not on-topic, the topic being Bush's "firing" of USAs, not his "replacement" of USAs, something he hasn't really done anyway.

Code word = sound, as in the opposite of JakeD's arguments.

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 5:35 PM:

Revealing: the word "replace" appears no where in Paul's post.

Revealing of JakeD's trollishness and disingenuity.

JakeD: "Sorry, Lee, if you answered that question, please just let me know what the timestamp is, because I've reviewed every post of yours on this thread but must have somehow missed that."

Just like you must have missed actually reading Paul's post or any of the information on the USA purge scandal.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 5:37 PM:

Lee, do you adopt that as your "answer" because I thought we had proceeded substantively along this debate much further than nitpicking semantics? As I stated above, we DON'T KNOW if Clinton fired these U.S. Attorneys for something other than good cause or even whether they were investigating Democrats, precisely because no one ever looked into it then like we are now with Bush's replacements. As I also said, if it will make you happy, I will agree to a change in the law that no U.S. Attorney can be fired by the President of the United States if they are investigating someone of the President's party except for good cause -- is that agreeable (I never got an answer to that one either)?

Troll Patrol wrote on July 11, 2007 5:45 PM:

If you feel a need to rant about trolls - or perhaps to share your research on them:

Click on "Troll Patrol" and you will find yourself at a cafe blog, where you can waste time on trolls to your heart's content.

Keep the threads clean - waste time at: trolls4jake! (a public service blog)

Troll Patrol wrote on July 11, 2007 5:48 PM:

oops! Try again here. Click "Troll Patrol" in red!

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 5:49 PM:

Note that JakeD's is the first comment and right away he tries to obsfucate the issue by using "replacing" rather than "firing."

Thus, it is JakeD who interjected the idea of "replacement" (not truly applicable as noted since Bush has actually "replaced" very few of the USAs "fired"), not the post author or any other commenter.

Which certainly qualifies as "trolling."

Code word = clean, as in we shall now all wash our hands of JakeD.

Sayonara!

trolls4jake wrote on July 11, 2007 5:57 PM:

Try this: click on "trolls4jake"

Somehow the url did not post before.

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 5:58 PM:

JakeD: As I stated above, we DON'T KNOW if Clinton fired these U.S. Attorneys . . .

What we have is a lack of any probable cause, something not lacking in the case of Bush, or even sufficient suspicion to justify an investigation, something we had plenty of in the case of Bush.

You lose again.

JakeD: "As I also said, if it will make you happy, I will agree to a change in the law that no U.S. Attorney can be fired by the President of the United States if they are investigating someone of the President's party except for good cause -- is that agreeable (I never got an answer to that one either)?"

It won't make anyone happy; what will make us content is when conservatives like you quit lying and dissembling about the USA purge, quit firing administration officers and staffers for refusing to do that which the Hatch Act prohibits (using one's governmental office for partisan political electioneering activities), admit that Bush is incompetent, mendacious, corrupt, and tragic, and that excellent USAs were fired for doing their jobs, not for not doing their jobs and for reasons that are inappropriate at the least and probably illegal (obstruction of justice, just to name one illegality).

Changing the law is irrelevant since Bush (and conservatives like you who support him) consider the law irrelevant and inapplicable to themselves.

Why would we pass a law that Bush will just ignore along with the rest of the laws he ignores?

No sale.

Code word = porter, as in JakeD is a porter of Bush's bullshit.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 6:16 PM:

Anyone else?

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 7:29 PM:

O.K., then. For the record, I simply provided a list above backing up Taylor's "opinion" (that's what the good Senator from Rhode Island asked her, but I never said that "nobody" knows why they were replaced (Clinton obviously knows) nor did I even allege that Clinton replaced them for political or improper considerations (the rest of us cannot KNOW that since there was no investigation). I will try to listen to the tape again and get Whitehouse's exact question -- if anyone wants to discuss that in a civil manner, please let me know.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 7:33 PM:

"Is it your opinion, based on your experience as a long-time observer of government, that a mid-term firing of nearly 10% of the U.S. Attorney corps is a customary practice of American Presidents?"

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 8:20 PM:

JakeD: "For the record, I simply provided a list above backing up Taylor's "opinion" (that's what the good Senator from Rhode Island asked her, but I never said that "nobody" knows why they were replaced (Clinton obviously knows) nor did I even allege that Clinton replaced them for political or improper considerations (the rest of us cannot KNOW that since there was no investigation)."

For the record, you have diverted the issue "replacement" when it is about "firing."

For the record, you have falsely asserted that Clinton replaced Dowd. He didn't, at least in the context of the post, which was about firing, meaning at the very least that "replace" is the equivalent of "force out the current USA and install a new one" (even assuming that Bush had installed new ones in all positions which he has not), not "fill a vacancy caused by the voluntary departure of the previous USA" which is what Clinton did.

People who lie do not deserve civility.

You do not deserve civility.

"Is it your opinion, based on your experience as a long-time observer of government, that a mid-term firing of nearly 10% of the U.S. Attorney corps is a customary practice of American Presidents?"

In the original post and something you totally ignored. No mention of "replace", only "firing" which does not necessarily mean "replace" and therefore your use of the term "replace" as an equivalent to "firing" is dishonest.

Deliberately so it would appear.

And no, Clinton never fired a large number, much less 10%, of the USAs in mid-term, never fired a large number of the USAs he had himself appointed (ever), nor has any other president, much less for such transparently dishonest and corrupt reasons, coupled with perjury, obstruction, and improper use of privilege.

Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 8:25 PM:

I can't answer for Jake.

All I know is, Carol Lam didn't want to leave her job in the middle of bringing indictments against the number 3 man at the CIA, that during the same time frame, the number 1 guy resigned, that she put a congressman in jail...and that the whole atmosphere of the US Attorney firings stinks to high heaven of obstruction of justice.

AND lastly...that the firings were orchestrated from the White House.

No one should tolerate abuse of power for any political party's dominance. That Jake seems to think that obstruction of justice is ok if it protects a political party is an incredibly sad statement of how far this country has fallen from its ideals.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 8:44 PM:

As I already said, there were NO investigations into Clinton's mid-term replacements, so we don't know whether they were improper firings or not. As Ms. Taylor noted, maybe he just did so more "artfully" -- therefore, the TITLE of this thread: "Maybe Clinton Got Away with It?" I really don't know how much clearer I can state my position.

anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 8:57 PM:

JakeD: "As I already said, there were NO investigations into Clinton's mid-term replacements, so we don't know whether they were improper firings or not."

As I have already said, in the context of the post, Clinton didn't "replace" any USAs.

As I have already said, there were no investigations because there was no basis for an investigation; there was a basis for investigating Bush's firings.

And yes, we know they were proper because they went through channels, according to established procedure, the reasons were discussed with the USAs who were to be terminated, and the reasons were documented are verifiable and have not been questioned because conservatives know there is no there there.

The firings by the Bush administration did not go through established channels, the USAs were not spoken with, they did not properly document the process, they have repeatedly lied about the process and contradicted what documentation exists, and they have obstructed any attempt to verify the reasons for the firings.

And finally, Clinton didn't fire 10% or even close to 10% of the USAs in mid-term, so even if the two firings were even remotely suspect, it still isn't support for "maybe Clinton did it too".

You are a liar.

I really don't know how much clearer I can state my position.

JT wrote on July 11, 2007 9:25 PM:

Well, another right-wing talking point put to bed.

Lie: "Clinton replaced USAs mid-term too, but no one investigated".

Truth: Some USAs resigned during Clinton's term or were promoted to other posts.

I would suspect that Jake got his marching orders from Le Grande Pill-Popper Rush today, except that recently I've only heard him talk about how the economy is doing great and the majority of the public thinks otherwise because the media fool them (he neglects to address stagnant wages, of course). So, it seems Jake is just another welfare recipient.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 11, 2007 9:27 PM:

Deep Breath.

Focus on the topic.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 11:38 PM:

Quite right -- let's focus on the topic: Maybe Clinton Got Away with It? Some here claim there was no basis for an investigation -- do we really know that for sure?

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 11:41 PM:

JT:

Perhaps you can explain exactly what is not true about (a) Clinton replaced USAs mid-term or (b) no one investigated. Even "anonymous" would admit that each of these statements are true, in a circular fashion, of course.

anonymous wrote on July 12, 2007 9:24 AM:

JakeD: "Some here claim there was no basis for an investigation -- do we really know that for sure?"

Yes.

The GOP controlled Congress and investigated Clinton like a HSA agent performs a body cavity search.

There was a paper trail that was consistent with known facts, showed proper procedure was followed, and shows no improper interference from White House staff.

You can continue to lie about the Clinton firings and filling of vacancies (at various times, not in large groups), but you still haven't addressed why any of that would make Clinton's actions similar even if they were done for political reasons because HE DIDN'T FIRE 10% OF THE USAs IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT A CONSISTENT EXPLANATION THAT FITS THE KNOWN FACTS.

Code word = expert, as in JakeD is an expert at bullsh*t and lying.

"(a) Clinton replaced USAs mid-term"

No, he did not, but even if he had, Bush didn't "replace" USAs midterm (in most instances), but fired them without replacements, so you are comparing apples and oranges and no amount of charges of "circular" reasoning will change the fact that you are misrepresenting the issue, not to mention the facts.

"(b) no one investigated"

The firings have been investigated by the press and by the GOP when trying to come up with an excuse that Clinton did it too and they found nothing.

So, yes, this is a lie to say that the firings have not been investigated.

They may not have been investigated at the time or by Congress, and for good reason, but they have been investigated and the argument that Clinton did it too has been exposed as without merit.

Jake D. wrote on July 12, 2007 10:13 AM:

How did the press or even GOP 10 years later have access to properly investigate?!

anonymous wrote on July 12, 2007 11:32 AM:

JakeD: "How did the press or even GOP 10 years later have access to properly investigate?!"

Because, unlike the Bush administration, a consistent, verifiable, and public documentary trail was created and because the participants are all still alive and have been willing to discuss the firings, giving consistent and credible statements, and because the subjects of the firings have never disputed the reasons for their firing.

I know it is difficult for Bush apologists and Clinton haters to absorb facts, but I don't know how I can be any more clear.

More importantly, the GOP Congress at the time Clinton served was willing to investigate even the most frivolous and ridiculous allegations of impropriety and had a microscope over the Clinton administration.

In such circumstances, even apart from the facts above, their failure to act is in and of itself overwhelming evidence that there was nothing to investigate.

Bottom line, however, is that it is up to those making the claim that Clinton may have done something wrong during the scattered and unconnected (temporally or otherwise) two firings to come up with evidence that justifies a comparison.

The reasons for the firings during Clinton's terms are on the public record, good cause was documented, and no one has come forward to contradict that record.

On the other hand, even apart from any congressional investigation, an abundance of evidence existed from the outset (from Republicans themselves; mainly the fired USAs, but also others), including the scope, timing, and nature of the Bush firings, to justify an investigation, none of which existed before, during, or after the two Clinton firings.

Not to mention that Clinton fired only two USAs, unconnected temporally, and therefore unsimilar in every respect to the facts of the Bush firings EVEN BEFORE ANY INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN CONDUCTED ON THE BUSH FIRINGS.

Therefore, to suggest that Clinton did it more artfully is to suggest that Clinton did something similar to Bush, a claim that is false in virtually every aspect but the most generalized possible: both fired USAs during their terms as president.

Bush, however, fired upwards of 9 USAs in a short period of time, temporally and procedurally connected, without providing an internally consistent public explanation (much less consistent with external facts), by a process that was not fully documented, with the involvement of White House staffers, without the active participation of the Attorney General, without any documentation showing good cause for dismissal, and with protests by well-known and respected figures in the legal community, including the USAs and present or former DOJ officials - none of which depends on any investigation by Congress or the media; the inconsistent statements and revealing e-mails simply added to the overwhelming evidence that existed prior to any investigation, evidence that was utterly lacking at the time of the Clinton firings.

Jake D. wrote on July 12, 2007 11:43 AM:

What we don't KNOW is how many of the other "replacements" were improper. That's the point you keep avoiding. I will grant you that those replaced have never disputed their replacement, and that the GOP Congress at the end of Clinton's term was willing to investigate even the most frivolous and ridiculous allegations of impropriety -- there are other possible explanations for that not happening besides your theory that there was nothing to investigate. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Vulture Breath wrote on July 12, 2007 1:29 PM:

Jake D:

Scott Lassar (the U.S. Atty in northern district of Illinois) was not fired or terminated in 1998. He continued to serve until 2001, when he was replaced by Patrick Fitzgerald.

So, um, where ARE you getting your information from??

Jake D. wrote on July 12, 2007 2:50 PM:

I never said that Scott Lassar was fired or terminated in 1998. He REPLACED Jim Burns (who had also been appointed by Clinton) in 1998. If you read my posts, you would have seen that I got all the information from the CLINTON WHITE HOUSE file, the specific one you refer to is maintained on-line here:
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/07/1998-07-20-lasser-named-us-attorney.html

anonymous wrote on July 12, 2007 6:11 PM:

Since Burns left to run for governor, your point has no merit.

Again, the public record reflects a clear, understandable, and non-controversial voluntary termination by Burns for a much more lucrative position without any protest by him or any indication whatsoever that he left involuntarily.

Unlike leaving for a job, which can happen anytime and cover for an involuntary termination, running for governor has specific timing that is not consistent with a decision to cover up being fired.

In any event, during the current purge, before any investigation, indeed something that prompted the investigation, Lam was complaining about the her termination despite landing a lucrative alternate employment.

Moreover, you have not identified any case that Burns was working on that would prompt questions about his departure; Lam clearly was in the middle of high-profile investigations.

As someone asserting that there may be something there with these minimal, normal comings and goings of USAs in the Clinton administration (as opposed to the mass firings of the Bush administration), you have the burdern to show that there is something there, not just proffer totally unfounded speculation designed to draw attention away from the obviously corrupt Bush firings.

I will repeat the botton line: Clinton never fired, replaced, or otherwise changed the structure of the US Attorneys serving in his administration in any way that resembles or could be construed under any assume, hypothesized, or fantasized circumstances as being similar to what Bush did.

Clinton, quite simply, never fired 10% of his appointees.

Not all at once. Not over time. Never.

So, there is nothing to investigate because there was never any similar firing, replacement, or other changes in the US attorneys in the Clinton administration.

The few firings, replacements, or other changes were thoroughly documented, reviewed by the press and the GOP, subject to oversight at the time, and offer no inconsistencies with known facts or the practices of past presidents.

Only Bush's actions (or actually those of his lackeys to which he improperly delegated presidential duties) are unprecedented, both in scope and nature.

End of story.

AZbill wrote on July 12, 2007 6:27 PM:

NO, NO, NO this does not involve President Clinton. This involves the Bush reich wing fascist crime family and ONLY them. The reich wing liars from the Republithug party will do everything and anything to blame someone else for their short falls. Bush is a criminal and so are the people that work for him. I have NEVER heard of so much "I can't remember". How do these people get to work in the morning???? Oh that's right, the tax payers are funding limos for this group of people who can't remember their way to the bathroom.

AZbill wrote on July 12, 2007 6:29 PM:

NO, NO, NO this does not involve President Clinton. This involves the Bush reich wing fascist crime family and ONLY them. The reich wing liars from the Republithug party will do everything and anything to blame someone else for their short falls. Bush is a criminal and so are the people that work for him. I have NEVER heard of so much "I can't remember". How do these people get to work in the morning???? Oh that's right, the tax payers are funding limos for this group of people who can't remember their way to the bathroom.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 9:25 AM:

anonymous and AZbill:

If Burns left because he had uncovered wrongdoing by a Clinton confidant, would that trouble either of you?

Anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 12:03 PM:

JakeD: If Burns left because he had uncovered wrongdoing by a Clinton confidant, would that trouble either of you?

JakeD's logic fully exposed:

If any of the USAs fired by Bush left because Bush raped them (both men and women) and threated to have them killed if they didn't leave and stay silent, would that trouble you?

How do we KNOW this didn't happen?

After all, it hasn't been investigated by either Congress or the media or anyone else.

So, we don't KNOW that it didn't happen.

And since it was not investigated and we don't KNOW that it didn't happen, it could be true and therefore it is valid to bring it up as a possibility.

And also since we don't KNOW that it didn't happen by other presidents, it is valid to also say that Reagan, under whose charge some USAs were replaced, could have been a serial rapist and extortionist of USAs also simply because Reagan was never investigated for serial rape and extortion of USAs and that therefore Reagan provides a possible example of it happening previously, and this supports the possibility that it happened with Bush.

==========

Code word = offer, as in JakeD really has nothing to offer but dimwitted logic.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 12:28 PM:

Your premise that there are no investigations into the Bush firings are incorrect. I guess you'd be correct to point that out as to Reagan (although theat theory would make more sense as against Clinton given the accusations of rape / murder against him).

anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 1:36 PM:

JakeD: "Your premise that there are no investigations into the Bush firings are incorrect."

You are free to link to any evidence of an investigation into whether Bush raped the USAs and threatened to kill them if they didn't leave or if they talked about it.

A failure to investigate a particular charge is no different than a failure to investigate, if the charge alleged is the actual reason for the actions being investigated.

If Burns left because he had uncovered wrongdoing by a Clinton confidant, but Clinton was only investigated for whether Burns left in order to affect pending cases (for which the investigation finds no evidence), you would still be claiming that we wouldn't KNOW if Burns left because he had uncovered wrongdoing by a Clinton confident and you would still be arguing that Clinton's exoneration on the charges of firing Burns to affect pending cases was irrelevant.

Your claim about necessary premises is just another example of your dissembling and trying to avoid the dishonesty of the logic you present.

Your premise, an incorrect one, seems to be that the Bush firings are being investigated with respect to every conceivable charge that might be leveled.

Obviously that is not true, but, again, you are free to link to any proof that any member of Congress or the media has inquired into whether Bush fired the USAs because he raped them and threatened to have them killed if they refused to leave or if they talked.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 1:53 PM:

Well, if you are claiming that Congressional staffers are investigating Bush so incompetently -- digging up dirt, interviewing whomever they can find, even granting immunity if needed -- that they could not uncover proof of your "hypothetical" S&M basement under the White House, I guess that says more about the ability of Democrats in power than the FACT there were no investigations into Clinton's replacements.

anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 3:06 PM:

JakeD: "Well, if you are claiming that Congressional staffers are investigating Bush so incompetently -- digging up dirt, interviewing whomever they can find, even granting immunity if needed -- that they could not uncover proof of your "hypothetical" S&M basement under the White House, I guess that says more about the ability of Democrats in power than the FACT there were no investigations into Clinton's replacements."

You are not even treading water any more, but sinking like a stone.

You can't find what you are not looking for.

Exactly your point in raising the issue of no investigation into the Clinton-era firings.

Thus, by your own standards, we can't KNOW if allegations of rape, etc., are true or not and everything else that follows from, again your own, logic, regardless of how competent the ongoing investigation are or are not.

But, of course, the Clinton firings were investigated and for the very same allegations that Bush is being investigated for (by both the media and the GOP) - the fact that the investigations occurred now, not then, doesn't mean that "no" investigation was ever done, no matter how many times you falsely claim it.

That you think the investigations inadequate, even though all the documentation and all the witnesses remain available from the Clinton years, is simply a testament to your obtuseness or is an admission of the incompetency of the current GOP which has had plenty of opportunity and access to the evidence, as well as plenty of incentive to investigate.

But "inadequate", particularly when obtusely proffered, does not equal "none" and stating that no investigations were conducted is not a fact, it is a lie.

Not to mention yet again that you still haven't given an explanation how the firings of two attorneys by Clinton, not connected temporally or by any other facially evident factor and with facially reasonable cause, compares to Bush's wholesale firing of 10% of his USAs, temporally connected, without any facially valid reasons for the firings being given, with protests by the fired USAs, without any evidence or charge of wrongdoing, and without any evidence or admission of voluntariness or other legitimate excuse, without any announcement of other plans prior to being fired, all of which was wholly public without reference to any evidence revealed through congressional investigation.

Since there is no similarity between the two actions when considering only the evidence that exists apart from any that has been produced by investigation, the Bush actions are unprecedented on their face and the charge that no investigation occurred with respect to Clinton's firings is irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent.

"Maybe Clinton did it too" doesn't hold any water because even if we assume that both firings under the Clinton administration were for bad faith reasons, it does not approach the conspiratorial scope and breadth of Bush's unprecedented attempt at a coordinated and wholesale perversion of the offices of the USAs for partisan political purposes aimed at affecting not only a broad range of politically-charged cases to the benefit of Republicans, but also aimed at systematically undermining the very foundations of our electoral system, something that simply would not have been possible with merely two USAs, particularly when their firings were not temporally connected.

You started with zilch and you still have zilch.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 3:29 PM:

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Feel free to have the last word on a dead thread.

anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 4:03 PM:

Word.

John Ryan wrote on July 14, 2007 3:36 PM:

Is there a difference between replaced and fired ?
I also believe that some that were replaced by Clinton were not fired by Clinton

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 10:37 AM:

Of course there's a difference between replaced and fired -- fired is a subset of replaced (the names of those replacements is all the information I have). I think it is possible that some that were replaced by Clinton were not fired by Clinton as well -- what we don't know -- since there was no investigation of Clinton's replacements -- were they forced to resign and/or politically motivated. As I pointed out in another thread, every prior Clinton appointee replaced above submitted a letter of resignation. We know that much is the same with Bush's replacements.

anonymous wrote on July 21, 2007 6:17 PM:

JakeD: ". . . since there was no investigation of Clinton's replacements . . "

There was an investigation, liar.

That it happened this year doesn't mean that it didn't happen at all.

That you think an investigation occurring this year is insufficient doesn't make it uninvestigated.

" . . . fired is a subset of replaced . . . "

Wrong or a lie; take your choice.

Firing without filling a position doesn't involve any "replacement" in any way shape or form.

Therefore, firing is not a subset of replacement.

Now you've got me thinking you are not a "Stanford Law" graduate, since they cannot really be this stupid.

Rowling wrote on July 23, 2007 11:20 AM:

In none of these cases were the positions left vacant -- I gave you the names of the replacements!!! As for an "investigation" this year, are you claiming the CRS Report was an actual "investigation"?

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 11:22 AM:

In none of these cases were the positions left vacant -- I gave you the names of the replacements!!! As for an "investigation" this year, are you claiming the CRS Report was an actual "investigation"?