Carol Platt Liebau: Irony Alert

Monday, March 26, 2007

Irony Alert

Hillary Clinton on the US attorney firings:

I think one of the hallmarks of our democracy is we have a devotion to the rule of law.

This from the woman who stood by the man who lied under oath to a grand jury and in a deposition, and who herself was involved in the gathering of hundreds of sensitive FBI files on former White House employees.

Yes, if there's anything that Hillary stands for, it's commitment to the rule of law.


Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

So Hillary broke the law did she?

Please provide a link to the official conviction of Hillary Clinton by law enforcement officials.

3:36 PM  
Blogger stackja1945 said...

"Yes, if there's anything that Hillary stands for, it's commitment to the rule of law." She is not worth a hillary of beans.

8:07 PM  
Blogger Greg said...


NOW you want specifics!

Only a few threads ago you were touting court rulings that never happened, laws that don't exist and crimes that aren't crimes. I asked you then to point out the specifics. To my knowledge, you never bothered.

But the truly ironic thing here (and the thing that belies your closed-mindedness) is that Carol never said Hillary broke the law. She merely pointed out the incongruency of Hillary's statement with Hillary's documented actions.

12:25 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...


Part of the reason I didn't respond was because I assumed - fairly logically - that you weren't prepared to listen.

So... let's backtrack. I will do you the courtesy of doing some research on one thing only - whether it was wrong to fire the eight attorneys.

So here we go.

Let's just ignore for a moment the fact that Alberto Gonzales said one thing under oath, and then a calendar released by the DOJ showed the other. Carol doesn't think this is lying.

And let's also ignore the fact that Monica Goodling (another Monica) has now refused to testify and taken the 5th, which indicates something very fishy.

And let's also forget the fact that Kyle Sampson and Michael Battle have resigned over this affair.

Doesn't exactly sound like a minor problem to me.

So. Was the firing of 93 US Attorneys in 1993 a political act by Clinton? Yes, but it was normal and expected. Was it legal? Yes.

Was the firing of the 8 Attorneys in 2006 a political act by Bush? Yes, but it was abnormal and unexpected. Was it legal? No.

Here is a quote from the LA Times:

Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.

In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.

The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.

Say what you will about the unreliability of the MSM. If you're going to dispute this quote from the LAT as being unfactual and unreliable, then find facts to prove otherwise.

And gosh, look here, an official DOJ document dated March 14 2001 that talks about the transition for all 93 Clinton appointed US Attorneys.

Since 1981, how many US Attorneys were dismissed by presidents?


And now we are to expect eight suddenly dismissed for no reason? And there was no legal reason - look at the DOJ documents yourself and sift through the emails between DOJ officials and the US Attorneys. None of them could understand what they were being fired for.

So... why couldn't Bush just fire the Attorneys? Why was it wrong?

Because it is illegal to interfere with the investigations these people were doing... investigations that were, not coincidentally, into the actions of the Republican Party.

Carol Lam was one of the eight attorneys fired. In the months leading up to her firing, she was subject to complaints by a number of Congressional reps, including, coincidentally, Duke Cunningham, who was eventually tried and convicted of corruption by Carol Lam.

In David Iglesias' case, he refused to follow up allegations of voter fraud by Democrats because there was lack of evidence. His refusal to toe the party line led to him being fired.

It is illegal - even for the president - to interfere with the investigations that US Attorneys are making.

So now I have done you the courtesy of research... research that has backed up my opinions (and informed them). Please do me the same courtesy.

11:42 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

You have GOT to be kidding me!

Forced to put up or shut up regarding legislation, statutes and specific cases, you quote the LA Times?!?!?


The New York Times is not what you would call a conservative rag, is it? Here's what NYT columnist David Carr had to say about the Lost Angeles Times:

"Reporting on the contretemps at The Los Angeles Times last week brings to mind a scene in which you come upon a sinking vessel and see people scrambling everywhere. And then you realize they are not looking for buckets, but guns."

That rag has become so ideologically bound to the left that it has lost all credibility, Salient. It's literally falling apart. Its news and editorial departments became one a very long time ago. Pay attention!

But even that ridiculous tactic doesn't hide the basic flaw in your response. You had said (shouted) that the firings of the U.S. Attorneys was an ILLEGAL act. Now you're struggling to convice that it was merely WRONG.

Thank your for that concession. I'll accept that as at least a nod on your part back toward reality.

Still, you continue to amaze me with the lengths you will stretch to imply wrong-doing in anything associated with the Bush Administration.

Your contention that use of the 5th Amendment is "fishy" is contemptable, Salient. That ammendment, along with many others, is a hallmark of a liberal democracy. You remember "Liberal Democracy" don't you, Salient. That's the form of government that allows the majority to govern itself yet has very strong protections for the minority.

Perhaps you'd rather remove those "fishy" protections of individual rights. Maybe you'd also like to force spouses to testify against each other. Would you have children forced to testify against their parents, too?

Where, exactly, does the left wing mind imagine the boundary of governmental authority to be?

To continue...

You say Clinton's 93 firings were political but expected and legal. But Bush's 8 firings were unexpected and illegal. To that logic I can only say:

You have GOT to be kidding me!

Oh, and did you forget that you had previously downgraded to merely wrong?

For all your cutting and pasting and linking, Salient, you still haven't identified which law has been broken. And wasn't that the original question?

Oh, yes. You did assert, again no specific law cited - just your assertion, that it is illiegal to fire a U.S. Attorney who is actively involved in an investigation.

Salient, name me one single U.S. Attorney that is not actively involved in an investigation. By your logic no U.S. Attorney could ever be replaced!

Were none of the 93 that Clinton fired involved in active investigations? Were any of them investigating the Clintons themselves?

You say these attorneys were fired for no legal reason. You are wrong. Here is the clearly stated and perfectly legal reason they were fired:

All U.S. Attorneys, as part of the Justice Department working for the Executive Branch, serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. It is the President's legal right to fire any or all of them at his discretion.

So which is it, Salient? Was the firing of these U.S. Attorneys illegal or merely wrong. I assert to you that it was neither. It was perfectly acceptable, ordinary, and within the rights of the President.

But I'm still willing to change my mind if, as I asked before, you can show me which law has been broken. In an effort to jog your memory, I think it's the one you said gives the President full authority to fire any or all U.S. Attorneys without restriction "early" in a President's term, but then somehow restricts that authority after some undisclosed amount of time has elapsed.

I'm still not finding that one.

2:39 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Oh, and except for the quote from the NYT columnist, I personally wrote everything in the above post.

You should try that, Salient. Thinking for yourself is excellent exercise. It's good for soul, mind, and body.

2:42 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Call me silly, but didn't we settle this with the Andrew Johnson impeachment?

7:33 PM  
Blogger Greg said...


8:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home