FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney

NewsBusters ^ | March 13, 2007 | Brent Baker

[dmw]

"Is this the Twilight Zone..."


http://frogstar.soylentgeek.com/wav/twilzone.wav

[lesko]

What I'd give to see a map like that in 2008. Won't happen: Republicans are too damn busy being nice and hoping the libs will 'see the errors of their ways' - all the while the Dems/libs continue to backstab and degrade our country.

[RobbyS]

Right. Hume is a conservative without a snarl, as congenial as Charlie. Charlie is such a likeable guy, which is why ABC is ahead of NBC.

[USMCWife6869]

It is a bit surreal.

[Kathy in Calif]

Hume didn't mention that Bush fired all 93 after taking office. Yes, Clinton did it en masse, and Bush did it over a six month period, but if Hume was being "fair and balanced" he would have stated that Bush got rid of all the federal prosecutors, too. Hume was trying to make it sound like Clinton fired all 93, and Bush just wanted to fire these eight.

[HaveHadEnough]

Hume didn't mention that Bush fired all 93 after taking office.

So those eight got fired twice?

[Al Gator]

Dear Kathy

You libs just can't help yourselves.

Your animosity towards Fox news, just like your liberal demoKaRat leanings, came bleeding through in this post.

And you had the nerve to ask me if I was on the correct thread?

I think you are on the wrong forum altogether.

Bubye!

[JRochelle]

This thread needs some pictures of Brit!

[JRochelle]

You are full of it.

Some of the guys who were fired were dems. Educate yourself before you go off spouting misinformation.

For example, the U.S. attorney from Seattle was a dem. Just now being replaced.

Go back to dummyland.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"Hume was trying to make it sound like Clinton fired all 93, and Bush just wanted to fire these eight."

As far as I can see, the DemocRATs have their panties in a wad more than usual because of W's use of the Patriot Act to bypass the need to get Congress's approval on hiring and firing of US attornies.

I listened to Brit and I didn't get what you describe from him at all.

Michael Frazier

[BfloGuy]

Bush did replace all the attorneys within six months of taking office, just as all presidents do.

I nor anyone else I know is aware of this mass-replacement. Please may we have a link to an article about this. I'm sure Brit Hume would welcome it, too.

[Lurking Libertarian]

So those eight got fired twice?

These 8 are not Clinton holdovers, they are Bush's own appointments. A president firing 8 of his own U.S. Attorneys at once is absolutely legal, but is unprecedented.

[Al Gator]

I kinda thought that was an outright ratz lie, but I don't have time to verify.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I nor anyone else I know is aware of this mass-replacement. Please may we have a link to an article about this. I'm sure Brit Hume would welcome it, too.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AG
MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2001
(202) 514-2007
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
TDD (202) 514-1888

WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys.

Attorney General Ashcroft said, "We are committed to making this an orderly transition to ensure effective, professional law enforcement that reflects the President 's priorities."

In January of this year, nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations. Two Justice Department exceptions were the United States Attorneys and United States Marshals.

Prior to the beginning of this transition process, nearly one-third of the United States Attorneys had already submitted their resignations. The White House and the Department of Justice have begun to schedule transition dates for most of the remaining United States Attorneys to occur prior to June of this year. President Bush will make announcements regarding his nominations to the Senate of new United States Attorneys as that information becomes available. Pending confirmation of the President's nominees, the Attorney General will make appointments of Interim United States Attorneys for a period of 120 days (28USC546). Upon the expiration of that appointment, the authority rests with the United States District Court (28USC546(d)).

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

[Wally_Kalbacken]

I savored that moment. Ronnie smote Wally Mondale into oblivion with humor. I seem to recall the laughter as continuing for about 4 minutes, and at some point it was obvious that even Mondale was laughing at himself. On election night Minnesota was too close to call until long after it was all over but the crying.

[Unicorn]

W does whatever Clinton tells him to do.

[Sam Hill]

"Brit Hume was either being disingenuous, or he's misinformed. Bush did replace all the attorneys within six months of taking office, just as all presidents do..."

You and Lugsoul and ContemptofCourt seem to be a tag team.

You have posted this and similar claims on EVERY thread on this subject.

And you have yet to produce ANY proof of your claim apart from a DoJ standard boilerplate press release which said the Bush administration would try to replace the US Attorneys within a certain time-frame.

You have offered ZERO evidence that they did. And there is much evidence that they did not.

You should either produce some evidence for your claim or stop spamming this agit-prop.

(And I invite all readers to read the posting history of the three poster named, if you doubt my words. While you are at it, see if you can find any "conservative" comments from these three bravos.)

[auto power]

Brit is the only intelligent news journalist we listen to for facts in the news...period.

[Sam Hill]

Sorry I left you off the list of the "tag team" above.

There is no proof that what this press release claims will happen did in fact happen.

Bush's administration had a notorious time getting going. Their appointments were stalled for months, and there were constant delays.

All of this is quite well known.

So this (standard issue) press release proves nothing. It certainly doesn't prove that Bush got rid of all of the US Attorneys by June, as your colleagues have claimed. (Though sometimes they do add the caveat of 1 or 2 exceptions.)

And there are still some Clinton holdovers to this day, according to Karl Rove.

[Kathy in Calif]

No, we're not a tag team. I keep posting the fact that Bush replaced political appointees when he took office because no one seems to know that.

I don't know what you mean by proof of my claim. It is standard procedure for an incoming administration to appoint its own political appointees. Why wouldn't Bush do the same? Please show some of the evidence you refer to,
evidence that the Bush administration did not replace Clinton's appointees.

I'm not spamming the thread, and I'm not criticizing the Bush administration. I just don't understand why you want to keep repeating false information.