Log in or Sign up

Subpoenas target Justice; White House could be next

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by macatak911, Mar 15, 2007.

Page 2 of 12

macatak911 CRAIG STELTZ = BEAST

Joined:

Jul 19, 2003

Messages:

3,806

Likes Received:

207

kcal said: ↑

Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8

Posted by Brent Baker on March 13, 2007 - 22:12. The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignations of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the “controversy,” fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would “look at all the angles tonight,” but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: “New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign.”
CBS's Katie Couric declared that “the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department” and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: “The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?” Brown soon asserted that “it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today” -- an explosion fueled by the news media.
ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News on March 13 led with and ran multiple stories on the controversy, which were clearly propelled, in part, by attacks by Senate Democrats who demanded the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But Justice Department clumsiness, which provided hooks for those Democratic attacks, does not absolve the news media of the responsibility for putting the replacement of U.S. attorneys into greater context for viewers so they would understand how Bush's predecessor removed every one (actually all but one as Brit Hume explained) so that Clinton, as is being charged in the current case, could replace them with attorneys more favorable to the administration's agenda.
Unlike ABC, CBS and NBC watchers, cable viewers got a hint of context as Steve Centanni, on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, pointed out how “the White House acknowledged there were talks in 2005, just after the President won his second term, about terminating all 93 U.S. attorneys just as President Clinton unceremoniously did 1993 after he won the White House.” The point made it onto CNN's The Situation Room -- barely -- thanks to guest Terry Jeffries who raised it during the 4pm EDT hour of the program.

Last week, on the same day as the Libby verdict, Katie Couric introduced a full March 6 CBS Evening News story by Sharyl Attkisson, who failed to remind viewers of Clinton's wholesale firings:

“Another big story in Washington tonight also involves federal prosecutors, or at least former prosecutors. Eight U.S. attorneys were axed by the Bush administration last year, and some Democrats say the firings were politically motivated. Today some of those ex-prosecutors told Congress about the pressure they felt from top Republicans.”
Back in 1993, the networks weren't so interested in Clinton's maneuver. The April 1993 edition of the MRC's MediaWatch newsletter recounted:

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. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say 'Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is."

read the rest: www.newsbusters.org

i guess the hitler youth just didn't notice this little episode, right red?

// // //
Click to expand...

Find more concrete details than a post on a site entitled "Exposing Liberal Media Bias"

macatak911, Mar 15, 2007

#11
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

BlackJack said: ↑

It's within the President's power to fire and hire prosecutors. It's also within his right to fire prosecutors who aren't following his policies. Clinton fires all of them and theres no issue.
Click to expand...

Clinton fired one of them. You know, it's strange for you to advocate an unchecked presidential power that you wouldn't be happy seeing a democtratic president exercise in two years.

BlackJack said: ↑

Bush does it and it's "Hitler youth". How "Left" of you. Gee, a Liberal using overly dramatic demagoguery. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

Did you see the wink? It was a friggin' joke.

BlackJack said: ↑

What's interesting is that even after taking back control of congress Democrats have still yet to offer 1 idea to better the country.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you are talking about and you clearly haven't been paying attention to Congress.

BlackJack said: ↑

PS- It's amusing to watch you Lefties and your buddies in the media try and create a new scandal every week only to have to invent a new one because the previous one didn't stick or stir the ire of the public enough. :hihi:
Click to expand...

What a load of crap. It ain't the media complaining, it's the Congress of the United States of America, chief. No one has to invent scandals for this administration, they just keep on coming like clockwork. This will be the second overt Patriot Act abuse of the month. The scandals are sticking like glue and they are starting to pile up. I hope you're still amused in 2008.

red55, Mar 15, 2007

#12
kcal Founding Member

Joined:

Dec 20, 2004

Messages:

10,961

Likes Received:

7,880

macatak911 said: ↑

Find more concrete details than a post on a site entitled "Exposing Liberal Media Bias"
Click to expand...

get past the feathers ruffling and read the article. all sorts of info is available, including clips of janet reno describing the firings on cnn. leave the liberal/conservative/neocon labels behind and see for yourself and make your own decision.

kcal, Mar 15, 2007

#13
macatak911 CRAIG STELTZ = BEAST

Joined:

Jul 19, 2003

Messages:

3,806

Likes Received:

207

kcal said: ↑

get past the feathers ruffling and read the article. all sorts of info is available, including clips of janet reno describing the firings on cnn. leave the liberal/conservative/neocon labels behind and see for yourself and make your own decision.
Click to expand...

I thought when a President takes office, he usually replaces all of them.

macatak911, Mar 15, 2007

#14
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

kcal said: ↑

Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8
Click to expand...

The fact is that EVERY President changes the US Attorneys when taking office. Bush also did the same thing when he took office. All 8 prosecutors that were fired were Bush appointees as are the other 81 prosecutors.

That is different and has never happened before. These were political firings while in office that were urelated to misconduct or poor performance. At 8 times the normal rate. This scandal is about Rove/Bush manipulating the federal prosecutors to only go after Democrats, and to ignore crimes by Republicans.

And here's the thing. The ones that were fired were let go because they wouldn't "play ball." So the question is, what about the ones who were not fired? What the hell are they up to?

red55, Mar 15, 2007

#15
kcal Founding Member

Joined:

Dec 20, 2004

Messages:

10,961

Likes Received:

7,880

macatak911 said: ↑

I thought when a President takes office, he usually replaces all of them.
Click to expand...

unless your name is bush....seriously though, it's interesting to see the histronics of the dems trying to turn this into a controversy.

kcal, Mar 15, 2007

#16

1 person likes this.
macatak911 CRAIG STELTZ = BEAST

Joined:

Jul 19, 2003

Messages:

3,806

Likes Received:

207

The DOJ is part of the President's cabinet. I don't see you complaining about ALL the other positions being fired when a new President takes office.

macatak911, Mar 15, 2007

#17
kcal Founding Member

Joined:

Dec 20, 2004

Messages:

10,961

Likes Received:

7,880

red55 said: ↑

That is different and has never happened before. These were political firings quote]

oh, i see... political firings began with the current administration. thanks for clearing that up for me.
Click to expand...

kcal, Mar 15, 2007

#18
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

BlackJack said: ↑

Red, why are you so intent to keep lying about the number of prosecutors Clinton fired? Is it because you know this is just another in a long line of double standards by your partners in the media?
Click to expand...

I'm not lying about a goddamn thing. New appointments by a new president are the exact opposite from the firing of serving prosecutors. Is it possible that you don't understand the difference when I just explained it to you? Bush also appointed new prosecutors in 2000. Understand? Appointed them, not fired them.

red55, Mar 15, 2007

#19
macatak911 CRAIG STELTZ = BEAST

Joined:

Jul 19, 2003

Messages:

3,806

Likes Received:

207

"The U.S. Attorney is appointed by and serves at the discretion[1] of the President of the United States for a term of four years, with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Attorney

Sounds like your anti-liberal site is skewing information.

macatak911, Mar 15, 2007

#20

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 2 of 12

Share This Page