20 Mar
Posted by MacRanger as Uncategorized
Clarice Feldman has done some digging and found that today’s democrats have “Selective Amnesia“:
“A common media trick to get editorial opinion into apparent news stories is the use of outside “scholars” to argue the writer’s point for him. So, I was not astonished to read this about the Gonzales kerfuffle in the St Louis Post- Dispatch:
Several former U.S. attorneys and legal scholars say the timing of the Bush administration’s replacement of top federal prosecutors is not only atypical, but also a threat to the impartial exercise of justice.“The sanctity of that position, in terms of that position being immune from any kind of pressure from the administration or Congress, has been the hallmark of the U.S. attorney process. It’s been the hallmark of the federal system of justice,” said W. Charles Grace, a former U.S. attorney for Illinois’ southern district.
The article doesn’t say which administration Mr. Grace served in .This is not surprising . When using this trick to squeeze opinion in a news story by using an outside “expert”, the writer rarely discloses the expert’s bias, usually Democratic. Googling his name, I see that he was a U.S. attorney in 1998 which suggests to me that President Clinton appointed him, and he appointed a lot of them, having fired every single US Attorney when he took office, and 30 more subsequently during his eight year term in office.
And while the number he replaced was astounding, his immediate Democratic predecessor, Jimmy Carter, replaced at least one during the middle of his term of office.”
Read the rest.
Clarice notes as I have that Clinton fired (let term expire and flat out can) 30 more US attorneys between 1994 until the expiration of his term. Again, I am researching the names now and will post them when I have them.
Top Stories in the Blogosphere News
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac. Starting at just $149.95 with free shipping.
The Commander in Chief at Work!
Reading List
Most Popular Posts
No Response
clarice
March 20th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
1From a poster on FR”The ironic thing is that I knew absolutely nothing about this whole “scandal” until March 14th, and the Marston article was one of the FIRST things I found while trying to refute another FReepers’ claim that U.S. Attorneys haven’t been fired before for political reasons. The other thing I noted in this post was that Nixon sacked Robert Morgantahu for (likely very good) political reasons, too. Any NYC conservative knows that Bob Morgenthau outright refused to enforce the NY death penalty law when it was reenacted during Pataki’s tenure. If he did anything insubordinate like that while serving under Nixon, it would be good cause for removal.
One of the reasons why the Carter and Nixon USA firings haven’t been news is because the Congressional Research Service’s report on “U.S. Attorneys Who Have Served Less than Full Four-Year Terms” didn’t look into USAs who were forced out before 1981. And the scope of the research is also a bit misleading, since most of the Clinton USAs left office AFTER their 4-year terms expired.
If the press were honest, they’d be looking into the circumstances of those USAs who left while Clinton was in office. I’d be willing to bet that a few were forced to leave before they wanted to make way for others or because they weren’t properly implementing Clinton’s policies or more nefarious reasons. That’s simply the nature of politics.
13 posted on 03/20/2007 1:28:58 PM PDT by conservative in nyc “
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.