Feinstein Hypocrisy Alert
This op/ed from Senator Dianne Feinstein is incredibly misleading. Feinstein, a member of the Judiciary Committee, has been playing an appallingly reckless role in trying to transform a non-event -- the removal of eight US attorneys -- into a major Washington scandal. What's more, she's been incredibly hypocritical in doing so.
First, she was silent back in 1993 when the Clinton Administration fired all 93 US attorneys.
Second, as the San Diego Union-Tribune notes, Feinstein herself had complained about the San Diego US attorney whose firing she now protests.
Third, for someone who continues to try to project an image of judicious sobriety, Feinstein has leveled some reckless charges -- for example, that the San Diego US attorney was fired for her role in the Duke Cunningham prosecution. In fact, there's not a scintilla of evidence to substantiate such a serious charge, and a cursory reading of White House emails reveals both that the US attorney was on the list to be fired before the Cunningham scandal even came to light, and second, that she was slated to be fired because of insufficient zeal in prosecuting illegal immigration cases, among other reasons.
Dianne Feinstein needs to take it down a notch and start telling the truth. In today's op/ed, one of the many egregious distortions include this paragraph:
Nonetheless, top officials at the White House and the Justice Department hatched a plan to remove a smaller number of U.S. attorneys. One of the keys in the evaluation was whether the prosecutor showed loyalty to the administration.
In fact, the White House emails reveal that loyalty was just one of the considerations in the mix -- but as she herself knows, there's nothing illegitimate about it. Every administration has the right to hire US attorneys who will be guided by its priorities -- and if the Bush Administration, for example, wants to emphasize the prosecution of child porn cases and terrorism matters, while de-emphasizing abortion clinic prosecutions (big in the Clinton Administration), that's its prerogative.
Elections have conseequences, Senator Feinstein.
First, she was silent back in 1993 when the Clinton Administration fired all 93 US attorneys.
Second, as the San Diego Union-Tribune notes, Feinstein herself had complained about the San Diego US attorney whose firing she now protests.
Third, for someone who continues to try to project an image of judicious sobriety, Feinstein has leveled some reckless charges -- for example, that the San Diego US attorney was fired for her role in the Duke Cunningham prosecution. In fact, there's not a scintilla of evidence to substantiate such a serious charge, and a cursory reading of White House emails reveals both that the US attorney was on the list to be fired before the Cunningham scandal even came to light, and second, that she was slated to be fired because of insufficient zeal in prosecuting illegal immigration cases, among other reasons.
Dianne Feinstein needs to take it down a notch and start telling the truth. In today's op/ed, one of the many egregious distortions include this paragraph:
Nonetheless, top officials at the White House and the Justice Department hatched a plan to remove a smaller number of U.S. attorneys. One of the keys in the evaluation was whether the prosecutor showed loyalty to the administration.
In fact, the White House emails reveal that loyalty was just one of the considerations in the mix -- but as she herself knows, there's nothing illegitimate about it. Every administration has the right to hire US attorneys who will be guided by its priorities -- and if the Bush Administration, for example, wants to emphasize the prosecution of child porn cases and terrorism matters, while de-emphasizing abortion clinic prosecutions (big in the Clinton Administration), that's its prerogative.
Elections have conseequences, Senator Feinstein.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:34 AM
4 Comments:
Just another example of the mission to attack anyone or anything in the Bush administration for anything at all.
Carol if "Dianne Feinstein needs to take it down a notch and start telling the truth." what happens to her distortions?
Typical right wing spin. Feinstein wrote a letter asking how Lam was performing on illegal immigration cases. The DOJ replied Lam's evaluation was good and she was performing well.
If the Bush Administration is trying to stand for Law and Order and the US Attorney was disloyal to the Administration then wasn't said US attorney disloyal to Law and Order?
Post a Comment
<< Home