Bias in Coverage of Attorney Firings
It’s always amusing reading media coverage of — and Democratic grandstanding on — the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys. It’s almost as if they have forgotten that federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. And whether they like it or not, George W. Bush is President until January 20, 2009. But, maybe that’s the problem they just can’t accept the results of the 2004 election.* Or they’re just doing their utmost to undermine them.
Latest case in point. In an AP article reporting that congressional committees “are issuing subpoenas for testimony” from former White House officials on the firings, reporter Laurie Kellman writes, “Democrats probing whether the White House improperly dictated which prosecutors the Justice Department should fire” (emphasis added). Unless the White House officials are not doing the bidding of the president, it would not be “improper” for them to tell Justice Department officials to fire political appointees, including federal prosecutors.
In the concluding line, we learn that “E-mails made public have shown that [White House officials] Miers, Taylor and Rove were looped into the decision-making process and attended meetings on the firings.” So? It isn’t seem improper for the president’s top legal and political aides to attend meetings about the firing (or hiring) of presidential appointees.
A further sign of the reporter’s bias is that while she does report that “that U.S. attorneys serve at the president’s pleasure and can be fired for any reason, or none at all,” she does so in a sentence which begins “Republicans point out.” As if it’s a partisan point, rather than a long-established practice. And constitutional prerogative.
No, there is no scandal here. Had the White House and Justice Department done a better job of explaining the firings, Democrats might not be trying to find a scandal when there’s merely a discrepancy between how Attorney General Alberto Gonzales explained the firings — and what actually took place. But, maybe even if he had pointed out that White House officials participated in the decision-making process (as was entirely proper), the Democrats would still be looking for scandal. After all, if George W. Bush does something, even if he does something which his predecessors have done, including his immediate predecessor, it must be scandalous because Bush — or his “minions” — did it.
It’s time for the Democratic majority in Congress to stop looking for scandals where there are none and to stop promising votes merely to appease their liberal base. They seem more interesting in appeasing that base — and embarrassing the president — than in governing the country. And that’s what they were elected to do.
****
*While Democrats may have won control of Congess in 2006, the Constitution invests executive power in the president. And that power includes the firing of certain federal officials.
21 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Let’s see…Bush’s attorney general fires only a few attorneys with questionable practices and it’s a “scandal” of epic proportions. Slick Willie’s attack dog Janet Reno gets ALL of the attorneys fired in one day and the MSM doesn’t let out a peep.
Bias? What liberal media bias?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 13, 2007 @ 1:44 pm - June 13, 2007
I am not surprised at the media’s reaction, and how anything that they can spin into a scandal, they will.
This is where I have most problems with the Bush administration, instead of allowing this to fester. They simply should have stood up and said, this is standard procedure. No one is available to talk to you. Move on.
Don’t get me started on Scooter Libby, talk about his being the sacrificial lamb, he is paying a very high price for the administration right now.
Comment by Leah — June 13, 2007 @ 1:49 pm - June 13, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriotWest [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Bias in Coverage of Attorney Firings — June 13, 2007 @ 3:04 pm - June 13, 2007
#2 – Well put, Leah.
Personally, I think the administration does not want to come out too forcefully against its detractors because it will get the MSM and leftist blogs (and who can tell them apart nowadays?) to start chanting the “Bush is Hitler/he can’t tolerate dissention/we’re all going to be sent to concentration camps” mantra.
Frankly, I feel that the best defense is a good offense. Let’s roll.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 13, 2007 @ 4:12 pm - June 13, 2007
It’s always amusing to see what Loyal Bushies are defending these days.
1. Clinton did it! hahahahaha Yea, that’s a NEW one, huh? Clinton fired USAs at the beginning of his first term, as did GW Bush, as did GHW Bush, as did Reagan, ETC.
But, how many Presidents have fired USAs in their SECOND term?
(Hint: Not Clinton. Not Reagan.)
2. Libby is a sacrificial lamb? hahahahahah
The prosecutor brought five felony charges.
The Grand Jury indicted on all five felonies.
A civilian jury convicted on four felonies.
Poor Scooter Libby.
Obviously not so big on the Rule of Law under The Worst President Ever, huh?
Comment by Jan — June 13, 2007 @ 4:20 pm - June 13, 2007
Jan, your comment is most amusing as your first point doesn’t even address the point of the post. The issue is that it’s the president’s prerogative to fire the attorneys, so it’s no big deal that these matters were discussed at the White House.
So, if you want to do more than throw out left-wing slogans, you should explain why this president is not big on the rule of law. For you fail to explain why the firing of the US attorneys was illegal or unethical.
Poorly explained it certainly was. But undermine the Rule of Law it did not. (Channeling Yoda am I today.)
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 13, 2007 @ 4:59 pm - June 13, 2007
The problem with this scandal is that it isn’t really a scandal, but the handling of the MSM and democratic criticism created a scandal.
Alberto Gonzalez really screwed up on this one, the WH and AG’s office didn’t handle things, and ended up creating more of a “there” than there really is.
It seems like the WH is pretty good at bungling things, even when they are right.
Comment by just me — June 13, 2007 @ 6:04 pm - June 13, 2007
#6:
If USA Carol Lam was fired because of her developing investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis, that might well be a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which covers someone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Dan, I’m sure you’d be seeking a full investigation of such potential criminal acts were it a Democratic Administration. Why would you want a Republican Administration treated differently?
Comment by Ian S — June 13, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - June 13, 2007
Is it a surprise that certain prosecutors were fired solely for vindictive reasons of the White House? Nope.
Comment by Kevin — June 13, 2007 @ 6:08 pm - June 13, 2007
Kevin, wanna back up your claim with evidence?
And Ian in *3, you raise what could be a valid point. So, it would be interesting to see if Ms. Lam’s successor is still investigating the allegations against the former Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Given that an assistant US Attorney was probably handling the day-to-day aspects of the case, we should see if the new (or acting) US Attorney has called a halt to the investigation.
If that were the case, then, something might be amiss here.
Please note the Democratic rebuttal to Clinton’s mass firing of US Attorneys. Republicans claimed he was obstructing the investigations against Dan Rostenkowski, then Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Perhaps, the firing did slow down (i.e., impede) that investigation, but it did proceed and that Democrat did plead guilty to reduced charges. So, the issue here is whether or not the investigation against this ranking Republican will proceed as it did against that ranking Democrat.
Interestingly, Clinton pardoned Rostenkowksi in 2000.
Oh and . . . justme in #7 pretty much nails it.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 13, 2007 @ 6:36 pm - June 13, 2007
No, there is no scandal here. Had the White House and Justice Department done a better job of explaining the firings.
Yes, if the WH had just come out and admitted that they fired USAs who were unwilling or slow to target Democratic politicians on demand, the whole thing would have gone away overnight! C’mon people.
The whole “pleasure of the president” thing is completely and totally true–and entirely besides the point. It’s being used to avoid discussion on the actual reasons for the firings. The whole “Clinton fired all of them” as part of housekeeping of a new administrations is not them same as what happened this time.
The scandal being unearthed here is the politicization of the Justice Department. Period. USAs were targeted for firing based on their unwillingness to go after very thin cases against Democratic candidates and elected officials, and to do so right before elections, in violation of established DoJ guidelines. That is something worth discussing, yes?
The “but we can do it legally” (ie, the “pleasure of the president” defense) doesn’t make something right. I realize that after 8 years of the most legalistic, it depend what your definition of is is, evasions and BS, it’s tempting to apply the same standard, but it’s just as intellectually sloppy to hide behind “we can do what we did” and not answer “we should have done what we did” when Bush does it as when Clinton did it.
Comment by torrentprime — June 13, 2007 @ 7:43 pm - June 13, 2007
Um, torrentprime, no scandal has been unearthed.
First, the post suggests that the issue may still have lingered had the White House done a better job of portraying it. And there’s pretty substantial evidence (at least in Washington State) of electoral improprieties in 2004. (I don’t know whether that evidence was sufficient to indict any officials.)
And so far, despite repeated investigations by Congress and the media, they haven’t turned up any evidence to buttress the various claims dished out by those on the left questioning the firings — except to show that there was White House coordination (which the AG inexplicably — and foolishly — denied).
Ian does raise a point in #8–if the firing of Carol Lam did serve to obstruct the investigation of Jerry Lewis, there would be an issue. And that would be a scandal.
As the reasons for the firings, well, the president does need give any. That’s his prerogative. He may not have done the right thing (and I’m not defending his actions), but the Administration’s actions just don’t amount to scandal. And that’s been my point all along.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 13, 2007 @ 8:25 pm - June 13, 2007
A little trivia… Janet Reno fired all but one US attorney. The one who was spared, at the behest of Sen Bill Bradley, was none other than Michael Chertoff.
Leah (#2) is spot on. Nothing to see here.
Comment by Robert — June 13, 2007 @ 10:01 pm - June 13, 2007
GPW: You seem to be saying that there is no scandal, because, well, you say there is not. You may not care about the issues I raised, but to pretend that they don’t exist is silly. And to respond to a comment that raises specific charges with, “He doesn’t have to explain his actions” hardly makes the charges go away. It’s executive privilege again, something I got very tired of hearing during the Clinton years, but apparently you’re cool with.
Do you disagree with or deny that the firings were motivated by a desire to send the USAs on partisan investigations? And that was a very ominous-sounding “there may or not have been evidence of something in one state that may or may not have lead to charges,” but even to say that is to acknowledge the connection between the investigations and the USAs who were targeted and fired, which means that there was an attempt, by the WH, to direct the activities and makeup of the DoJ for specific partisan gain. That really doesn’t bother you? You may choose not to be outraged by it, but it doesn’t make it go away.
And I don’t believe for one second that you would be totally cool with a future hypothetical president HRC or Obama stocking the DoJ with only USAs who target Republican officials, especially in violation of established DoJ guidelines. Another aspect of my comment you didn’t address, BTW.
Comment by torrentprime — June 13, 2007 @ 10:17 pm - June 13, 2007
#12:
Actually, they have but that’s no thanks to the White House which continues to stonewall and obstruct any investigation by Congress. One would almost think the Bushies had something to hide!
Comment by Ian S — June 13, 2007 @ 11:21 pm - June 13, 2007
Torrentprime, I believe the crux of the problem is that the president (and/or the Justice Department) failed to explain the firings.
First, I’m not sure the Administration did the right thing in firing the prosecutors. That’s a separate issue from whether or not the firings were scandalous.
If evidence emerges that the attorneys were fired because they did not go on partisan investigations, then I’ll consider that. But, at least as far as Washington State goes (the case with which I am most familiar), I am aware of pretty substantial evidence of vote fraud in the 2004 gubernatorial election where more and more votes kept emerging for the Democratic candidate who lost the initial count and the first recount, only to win on the second. And when more votes were counted in Democratic King County than people voted.
And no, I would not be “cool” with a Democratic president engaged in partisan investigations (something which may well have happened during Mrs. Clinton’s husband’s term).
But, so far we just see coordination between the White House and Justice Department, but only (what could best be described as) circumstantial evidence of “sinister” motives.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 13, 2007 @ 11:58 pm - June 13, 2007
How about when Joe Biden and Leaky Leahy publicly stated that there’s no scandal?
Comment by ThatGayConservatives — June 14, 2007 @ 2:45 am - June 14, 2007
Well I don’t know about Carter, but BJ perjured himself and obstructed justice. Now he gets to prance around the world telling anybody, who’ll toss him a couple hundred large, how rich he is.
You may be right in regards to Sandy Burglar though. What did he steal out of the archives? Better yet, what did he put back?
Then again, McDermott got spanked and Jefferson’s on his way down.
Comment by ThatGayConservatives — June 14, 2007 @ 5:50 am - June 14, 2007
the problem is that bushco has, once again, politicized an office which should be neutral.
bushco = one filthy administration.
Comment by rightiswrong — June 14, 2007 @ 8:51 am - June 14, 2007
“rightiswrong,” your comments help prove so many of my points about how so many on the left are more interesting in insulting their ideological adversaries than engaging them. All you do is repeat left-wing talking points and hurl insults without offering any facts or arguments to back up your statements.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 14, 2007 @ 11:49 am - June 14, 2007
This is a ridiculous non-scandal that has gotten far too much traction due to politics. If Congress wants to attempt another Tenure of Office Act in their faux outrage, fine. Let them. SCOTUS will shoot that down even faster than the last time it did over a century ago.
Comment by John — June 14, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - June 14, 2007