All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Last night, Fox News' Brit Hume kicked off his show by criticizing the media for "news stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country [that] failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993."

This argument has been making its way around the conservative echo chamber. Wrote Brent Baker: "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."

In light of all this, I thought it was important to compare the two cases.

The Washington Post laid it out like this: "Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."

Former acting attorney general Stuart Gerson, meanwhile, wrote that it "is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind."

Read full post…