If you want Peace, Work for Justice

The Office of United States Attorney has just become the safest political appointment in the nation.  In the naivete of my youth, I believed that US Attorneys served at the pleasure of the President and that they would be subject to replacement if the President decided to go a different direction. 

So when Janet Reno fired all 93 US attorneys on behalf of Bill Clinton, there was some controversy, but everyone understood that Clinton was the President and he could pick his own team. 

Then President Bush decided to replace seven US Attorneys and all hell broke lose.  We haven't seen such outrage since FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court.

I guess the the US Attorneys are now untouchable guardians of Truth, Justice and the American Way.  So now that Eric Holder is going to be the new AG, I presume that all US Attorneys are safe. 

After all, it would be pretty hypocritical for the media and the Democrats to howl over the removal of a handful US Attorneys and then fire a bunch of them when Obama becomes President.  And if there's one thing that we can count on, it's that the Mainstream Media and the Congressional Democrats are never hypocritical. 

Politically appointed attorneys often have tumultuous careers but now President Obama's Justice Department will offer a safe haven where US Attorneys are retained based on their qualifications and not because they support the President's agenda.  So if you want peace, work for Justice.

Here's the clip of Janet Reno firing all 93 US Attorneys.  It's funny, she reminds me of someone, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

Comments

[Retrorv]

It was wrong then and wrong now. A big difference is the extent of the politicization of DoJ under Bush. Career prosecutors were vetted for the loyalty to Bush and for an agenda that was essentially GOP talking points. Reno was incompetent but the DoJ never became an extention of the DNC under her.

[ron]

Excuse me, Greg.

The 93 attorneys fired by Clinton/Reno were Bush appointess. The 7 fired by Bush/Gonzales were Bush's appointees - all of whom were approved by a Republican-controlled congress. Apparently, Bush/Gonzales had problems with their OWN appointees which is probably why all heck broke loose.

This is a case of apples and oranges.

[Dave K.]

Not quite sure if the above comment is delusional or just wishful thinking? ...

At least with Greg I know when he's being sarcastic ...

[Marizco]

No surprise there, Feds serve at the pleasure of the president. Hell, Bush 41 even fired Reagan's federal prosecutors. It's the reasons for the firings that is suspect.
These were Bush's own people. When Charlton was fired, he had already refused to take a dirty FBI sting case, Operation Lively Green, and had opened investigations into Renzi, whom Bush stumped for in 02.

[Lance E]

The attempts by some posters to portray the Clinton Justice Dept. as principled and the Bush Justice Dept. as unprincipled, for doing the same thing, are becoming unintentionally hilarious.

First, the Clinton Justice Dept. was rabidly, mindlessly partisan throughout the second term, culminating in its sign off on the pardon of a wanted fugitive.

Second, firing qualified appointees because they were appointed by someone other than you should make for more, not less, scrutiny.

Finally, it is tough to argue that the Bush Justice Dept. fired Charlton because he was investigating Renzi, when the same Bush Justice Dept. has indicted Renzi on 43 criminal counts.

Time, Newsweek, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN, following the lead of the NYT, will all excuse the behavior from Obama and Clinton, while condemning it in any Republican, because 97% of those who make content related decisions at those organizations voted for Clinton and Obama and their spouse is up for a deputy undersecretary position in the new administration.

[Walter]

If any of these people felt like they were being politically persecuted, they should have stood their ground and instead of submitting their resignations forced the Administration's hand and wait to be fired. (these people are lawyers, right?)

[Frank Soto]

C'mon Greg, all you would have to do is talk to Charlton, or any other US Attorney, or even an AUSA and they would explain that all president's replace basically all US Attorney's when they come into office. All AUSA's know that if they apply for the appointment (and yes, there is an informal/formal application process) that being the US Attorney is the last position they will hold. The only exception to this is people that are interim. The scandal with the Bush firings is that they were expressly because the US Attorney's would not either (a) proceed or (b) desist in certain prosecutions that main justice disagreed with. Now, this may be perfectly acceptable since these positions are at the whim of the executive, but it was a strong break with a tradition of independence for local USAOs. If you talk to Charlton, he believes that he was fired for not seeking the death penalty in a particular case where the 'smoking gun' could have been unburied, but main justice was not willing to pay the money to obtain the evidence. He felt uncomfortable asking for the death penalty in such a case.

You are becoming as bad as the MSM with posts like this. Charlton has been more than happy to talk about the firing in the past, and I am sure that he would be happy to discuss the historical relationship between the executive, DOJ, and the local USAO.

[Marizco]

Well no, Lance; actually, The New York Times lambasted Reno and the Clinton administration for dismissing the 93 Feds, implying that the firings were tied to the case of Rep. Dan Rostenkowski.
But don't let little things like facts and historical knowledge get in the way of your outrage against the "liberal media."

(Aftermath: as it turned out, the NYT was wrong and the Bush holdovers were already starting to resign by the time Reno got there anyway).

[Jim Torgeson]

Hum... how can two people see two situations entirely differently?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Dewey]

I'm glad I'm eating pretzels while I read these "please don't do to me what I just did to you" comments. The pretzels are a nice visual aid.

[Jay]

Wikipedia as a source? You've gone MSM.

[Craig]

Tying Greg's two posts together - SNL will be able to revive Janet Reno's Dance Party, with a new host!