SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (55937)3/14/2007 11:22:02 PM
From: ManyMoose  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Maybe the Republicans need to raise a big stink and compare to Clinton's history on firing US Attorneys.



To: Sully- who wrote (55937)3/15/2007 2:37:20 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
More on a non-scandal

Power Line

The Washington Post continues to give front-page coverage to what (so far as appears now) is a very slim story -- the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, which I discussed previously. According to a memo from Attorney General Gonzales' aide, the goal was to remove "weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc." The Post points to no evidence (and I've seen none) that any of the "gang of eight" didn't have either performance-related problems or issues relating to failure to pursue administration initiatives. The Post points to no evidence (and I've seen none) that the initiatives in question were illegitimate. They appear to consist of prosecuting voter fraud or prosecuting crimes associated with ilegal immigration. Surely, any administration has the right to remove its appointed prosecutors (who serve at the president's pleasure) if they aren't aggressive in pursuing types of criminal activity the president considers significant.

In the absence of any real scandal, the Post finds itself talking about how a White House aide used an e-mail account registered to the RNC to communicate about the appointment of a new U.S. attorney in Little Rock. Hold the presses! The Post also notes that Gonzales had a high enough regard for the fired New Mexico U.S. Attorney, a strong performer who apparently lost his job because (allegedly) he wasn't strong enough on voter fraud crime, that he was willing to serve as a job reference. One can only imagine the Post's outrage if Gonzales had been so "vindictive" as to refuse to serve as a reference.

The Post is also raising questions about the Attorney General's failure to know enough about what was going to provide good information to Congress on the subject. This is a legitimate criticism. Gonzales should have been in the loop on any decision-making about firing U.S. Attorneys. But while I'm no big fan of Gonzales, Post columnist Ruth Marcus goes too far in arguing that Gonzales should lose his job over this. Based on what we know so far, the decisions made by the aide to whom Gonzales delegated the task were reasonable ones, so I don't see how Gonzales can be fired on that basis. As for not getting good information to Congress, Gonzales says his aide didn't provide complete information. If that's true, the aide should be removed (and has been), not Gonzales.

UPDATE: Ed Whelan also sees the reaction to the eight dismissals as "curiously overwrought."

To comment on this story, go here.
plnewsforum.com

powerlineblog.com

washingtonpost.com

powerlineblog.com

washingtonpost.com

bench.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (55937)3/15/2007 2:58:22 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
There is no liberal media bias.... There is no liberal media bias.... There is no liberal media bias.... There is no liberal media bias.... There is no liberal media bias....

ABC and CBS Lead Again with Fired Attorneys, Paint Them as Victims of Bush Politics

Posted by Brent Baker
NewsBusters.org
March 14, 2007

When the Clinton administration in 1993, in a then-unprecedented decision, gave all 93 U.S. Attorneys ten days to leave their offices, including Jay Stephens who was in the midst of investigating House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, ABC's World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News didn't utter a syllable about it. But on Wednesday night, the evening newscasts on both networks led with Republican Senator John Sununu's call for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as both highlighted different U.S. Attorneys who were amongst the eight replaced late last year by the Bush administration, painting both as victims of nefarious political maneuvering.

“The pressure on the Attorney General of the United States to resign is growing,” ABC anchor Charles Gibson trumpeted, “for the first time, a Republican Senator has said Alberto Gonzales must go.” Focusing on the fired U.S. Attorney for San Diego, Carol Lam, reporter Pierre Thomas suggested she was removed for pursuing a case against a GOP Congressman and relayed how “Democrats pointed out that most of the eight fired U.S. attorneys had excellent performance reviews.” On CBS, Sandra Hughes delivered a “CBS News Exclusive” about how “John McKay was fired in December for reasons he now believes had nothing to do with the way he did his job, but very much to do with Washington politics.” Hughes passed along how “it was what he didn't do that McKay believes got him fired. In the 2004 gubernatorial race in Washington state, the Democratic candidate won by just a couple of hundred votes. McKay didn't call a grand jury to investigate questions of voter fraud.” But as Wall Street Journal editorial on Wednesday noted, McKay ignored very real evidence of voter fraud.

An excerpt from the March 14 Wall Street Journal editorial:
    ....The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had 
been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been
less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that
the President had made the point to Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of
democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate
for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his
appointees act energetically against it.
    Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington 
state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor
of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third
recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media
outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased,
others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and
still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots
were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this
constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it
should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat,
to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on
grounds that he had better things to do....
Wednesday's NBC Nightly News, anchored by Campbell Brown, didn't lead with the matter and held itself to one story which aired after pieces on the FDA demanding new warnings on sleeping pills, the survival rates for heart attack victims and a short item on the HPV vaccine controversy.

The April 1993 edition of the MRC's MediaWatch newsletter reported:
    Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a
very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites
made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the
House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman
Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never
mentioned it.
For an excerpt from a March of 1993 Washington Post story on Reno's move, as well as a rundown of how the Tuesday night broadcast network newscasts all led with the controversy, check my Tuesday night NewsBusters posting linked below).

Now, to the March14 ABC and CBS evening newscast coverage:

ABC's World News. Anchor Charles Gibson teased:

<<< “Tonight, new calls for the Attorney General to resign over the firing of U.S. prosecutors. President Bush comes to his defense, but says he needs to explain.” >>>

Gibson led:

<<< “Good evening. The pressure on the Attorney General of the United States to resign is growing. For the first time, a Republican Senator has said Alberto Gonzales must go. New Hampshire Senator John Sununu today told ABC News [text on screen] 'the President should fire the Attorney General. That's what's in the President's interest and the country's interest.' President Bush did come to Gonzales' defense earlier in the day, but the President also joined the chorus of criticism.” >>>

Pierre Thomas asserted that at a press conference in Mexico President Bush “admitted he had passed along complaints about some U.S. Attorneys to the Attorney General” and Thomas showed a soundbite of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claiming the Bush administration had committed an “illegal” act, before relaying the Democratic spin that painted one U.S. Attorney as a victim of improper political consideration:


<<< “Democrats pointed out that most of the eight fired U.S. attorneys had excellent performance reviews. Carol Lam was the U.S. Attorney in San Diego. Her performance review noted some problems with immigration enforcement, but otherwise described her as 'an effective manager and a respected leader in her district.' Democrats say she was fired for prosecuting Republican politicians. They point to a Justice Department e-mail, dated May 11th, 2006. The Attorney General's Chief-of-Staff, D. Kyle Sampson, wrote a senior White House official, 'please call me at your convenience to discuss the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.' Lam had prosecuted Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham for corruption. On May 11th, the Los Angeles Times published an article suggesting Lam was turning her investigation toward another Republican Congressman. Lam would be fired seven months later. The Justice Department gave no reasons.”

Carol Lam at March 6 hearing: “We were given little or no information about the reason for the requests for our resignations.”

Thomas: “David Schertler, a former federal prosecutor, says Lam's firing appears to fly in the face of Justice Department tradition.”

David Schertler: “In the past, where you've had a U.S. Attorney working on a politically sensitive case, the department has almost taken a hands-off approach so that there'd not be any appearance of impropriety.” >>>

CBS Evening News. Katie Couric opened:

<<< "Hello, everyone. President Bush tonight is defending the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. He says it was the right thing to do. What was wrong, he says, is the way the Justice Department told Congress about it. That would include saying the White House wasn't involved. Turns out it was. Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire today became the first Republican in Congress to call on the President to fire the Attorney General. The President is not doing that, but he is making the Attorney General clean up the mess. Here's Jim Axelrod." >>>

After the first story by Jim Axelrod on how Bush took Gonzales "to the woodshed” and how it "appears some [of the U.S. Attorneys] were fired for political reasons," Couric set up what was introduced in the tease as a “CBS News Exclusive” story:

<<< "As we've told you, the President says the firings were appropriate, but one of the U.S. attorneys who got the axe told CBS News it certainly wasn't in his case. By most accounts, he was a star prosecutor in Washington state, and he talks exclusively tonight to Sandra Hughes."

John McKay, former U.S. attorney: "I'm disappointed in the President. I'm disappointed in the Attorney General."

Sandra Hughes: "That's because former U.S. attorney John McKay was fired in December for reasons he now believes had nothing to do with the way he did his job, but very much to do with Washington politics."

McKay: "I asked for the reasons that I was being asked to resign, and I was given no reasons."

Hughes: "McKay's office won a conviction of the man who was planning to blow up the Los Angeles airport, the millennium bomber, and a conviction of James Ujaama, who was planning to build an al-Qaeda training camp in Oregon. He was also lauded for cracking down on drug smuggling from Canada. So when the Attorney General said he was fired for performance reasons, he was livid."

McKay: "I knew that was false, and I felt obligated to speak up."

Hughes: "CBS News obtained McKay's most recent performance review, written just three months before his firing. In it, he was described as 'effective, well-regarded, and' a 'capable leader.'"

McKay: "I am really proud of the work that was done in my office, and the, you know, the excellent run that I had."

Hughes: "Justice officials say they also had a problem with McKay over the way he shared information with local and federal law enforcement officials. But it was what he didn't do that McKay believes got him fired. In the 2004 gubernatorial race in Washington state, the Democratic candidate won by just a couple of hundred votes. McKay didn't call a grand jury to investigate questions of voter fraud. And he heard about it when he sought a promotion."

McKay: "I did apply to be federal judge last fall, and at that time, questions were directed to me about the 2004 governor's election in Washington state."

Hughes: "Shortly after, McKay's name appeared on an e-mail between the Justice Department and the White House listed as a U.S. Attorney 'being pushed out.'"

McKay: "Any individual prosecutor is replaceable. What's not replaceable is our reputation for fairness, our reputation for independence from political influences."

Hughes: "McKay is no longer prosecuting al-Qaeda suspects or drug smugglers for the U.S. government. He's teaching law students, who now may benefit from a crash course in Bush administration politics. Sandra Hughes, CBS News, Los Angeles." >>>

Following Hughes, Couric turned to CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen who declared it “absolutely extraordinary” to remove U.S. Attorneys in middle of a President's term.

newsbusters.org

mediaresearch.org

newsbusters.org



To: Sully- who wrote (55937)3/15/2007 3:32:17 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
    Moments like these are when conservatives need to focus 
not on Gonzales, but consider how the "mainstream" media
are so transparently partisan that they omit any and all
information that doesn't help the Democrats. If you're
going to judge Gonzales (and by extension, Team Bush), ask
yourself: why aren't the Bush people reminding the media
of Clinton's 1993 firings? How can they constantly lead
with their chins?

Re: Gonzales

Tim Graham
The Corner

Alberto Gonzales was battered and abused across the network morning-show front today. I'm guessing CNN's Miles O'Brien was roughest, pounding on him to answer the question when (or if) he will resign. Gonzales may have mishandled this. He may be no Ashcroft. But Gonzales should not be judged without considering the massive media double-standard on this puny scandal. Here's your breakfast drinking game: Have a drink every time the networks mention that Bush fired eight U.S. attorneys, and Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys in 1993. It's a drinking game in which you'll never get drunk.

No one in the media demanded that Janet Reno should resign in 1993. Of course, at that point in her tenure, she was still trying to find the ladies' bathroom. (Felonious Webster Hubbell, the legendary embezzler, was the man really in charge at that point, and he wasn't even confirmed yet.) ABC and CBS didn't even mention the mass firings. NBC and CNN mentioned it in passing.

Moments like these are when conservatives need to focus not on Gonzales, but consider how the "mainstream" media are so transparently partisan that they omit any and all information that doesn't help the Democrats. If you're going to judge Gonzales (and by extension, Team Bush), ask yourself: why aren't the Bush people reminding the media of Clinton's 1993 firings? How can they constantly lead with their chins?

corner.nationalreview.com