From what I understand, there is precedent for cleaning house in the US Attorney’s office at the beginning of an administration and that this is accomplished one of two ways: 1) asking for the resignation/firing them and 2) not renewing their appointments. It is also my understanding that Clinton cleaned house dramatically at the beginning of his administration by firing 92 of the 93 US Attorneys, but today I heard (from Laura Ingram) that he also fired an additional 30 (his appointments, I presume?) during his tenure.
Questions:
Did Clinton fire any (and if so how many) of his own US Attorney appointments after the initial sweep/was there really an initial sweep? If so, what was his stated justification and was it questioned (it’s not like he enjoyed complete control over Congress during his terms)?
How many US Attorneys did Reagan and Bush the Elder fire at the commencement of their terms, and of those that weren’t fired, how soon were they out of the US Attorney’s office for some other reason (e.g. term lapsed)?
Before anyone goes off on the whole “it’s not that he (W) fired them, it’s why he fired them” bent, realize I understand this. I am just looking for the facts as they relate to other administrations. Thanks
According to this (warning: PDF file), the numbers break down like this: There were 54 U.S. attorneys appointed between 1981 and 2006 that did not serve out their 4-year term. [ul]
[li]17 left office early to take positions as Article III federal judges.[/li][li]1 left to become a U.S. magistrate judge[/li][li]6 left to take other positions in the Executive branch (5 of whom stayed in the DoJ)[/li][li]4 left early to seek elective office[/li][li]2 left early to serve in state government[/li][li]1 died[/li][li]15 left to enter or return to private practice[/li][/ul]
That leaves 8. 2 were dismissed by Reagan (in '82 & '84). One because he was making accusations about DoJ interference in his prosecution of a CIA informant. The other was because he allegedly disclosed information about a pending indictment (an allegation that eventually led to a conviction charge).
The other 6 resigned. “News reports suggested that, in at least three of those cases, their resignations were the result of questionable conduct.” Two were under Clinton (in '94 & '96), both related to the resignee allegedly assaulting someone (a TV reporter and a stripper, respectively). The third resigned just a few days after Bush I came into office because he was the subject of an internal DoJ probe.
The Congressional Research Service (which drafted this report) was unable to determine the reasons behind the other 3 resignations. All 3 of those resignations were under Bush II (one as recently as Jan '07, just short of the 4-year term).
The attorneys serve for four-year-terms. When a new president takes office he typically replaces most of the attorneys with his own appointees. That’s what Reagan did, that’s what Bush I did, that’s what Clinton did, and that’s what Bush II did. That’s where the 92 out of 93 figure comes from.
The issue with the current firings is that Bush fired 8 attorneys in the middle of their terms. That’s NOT typical, and that’s what the linked study is pointing out. Clinton only fired two attorneys under those circumstances and both were for ethics reasons – they assaulted people.
The recent Bush firings are disturbing because the attorneys in question didn’t have any black marks against them. They had excellent records and hadn’t committed any improprieties. Instead, there is a fair amount of evidence that they were fired for political reasons: because they were investigating charges of Republican corruption, or refusing to bow to pressure from Republican law-makers to investigate Democrats.
Although the U. S. attorneys are appointed by the president, they theoretically are supposed to be independent of political motivation. They’re not supposed to be used as a tool by one party to beat up on the other. Hence the current scandal.
I’m not sure “fire” is the right term. The terms are for four years. All of Bush I’s appointees (except for the ones I mentioned) appear to have finished their 4-year terms. Did Clinton simply fail to renew their appointment or did he actually “fire” them? Either way, even Rove’s lackey (the recently resigned Kyle Sampson) admits that what Clinton did was SOP:
Y’all are doing just fine here. No problems. Just want to warn others who may come into this thread to keep it ON TOPIC, and keep any political discussions OUT of General Questions.
To reinforce that Clinton’s actions from the beginning of his term weren’t unusual, here’s a Department of Justice memo from 2001, shortly after President Bush took office. It mentions that 91 of Clinton’s 93 U.S. attorneys have already submitted their resignations.
Yep. If, for example, Bush wasn’t reelected in 2004, all of his U.S. Attorneys would have been swept out and replaced by Gore’s appointments. No scandal there, just the normal course of doing buisiness.
Here’s the relevant part of the U.S. code. The four-year term begins when the attorney is appointed, not when the President takes office. However, since most new presidents replace the bulk of the existing attorneys when they take office, the terms tend to synch up with the president’s.
Let me point out that the current scandal isn’t about whether or not the President has the power to do what he did. Everyone agrees that he does. The scandal is over the reason behind the firings. It’s expected that a president will replace the U.S. attorneys with his own picks. It’s not expected that U.S. attorneys will be pressured to protect members of the president’s party or encouraged to go after members of the opposition. And, unfortunately, there’s evidence that that’s what was going on.