WI: Bill Named Hillary Attorney General?

Westbrook 49

So, I've read this in a couple of places, but I haven't been able to confirm it, so this is sort of an ask and a What If?

Bill Clinton was supposedly considering naming his wife Hillary as Attorney General early in his Administration, an absolute paradigm shift in the perception of what First Ladies are supposed to be/do, even more so than Hillary already was. It isn't like she wouldn't be qualified for it (graduated from Yale, worked on the Watergate inquiry, major advocate for children, board of Legal Services Corporation, first female partner at Rose, so on and so forth), and it would have fit in with the Clinton's views of themselves and of Washington (Hillary as "co-president," grandiosity and changing Washington, Hillary as first female AG).

In all honesty, I think that HRC would be a good Attorney General.
But I can see a whole host of problems arising from this: lawsuits against the AG get filed all the time, and just having the case be named Clinton vs.______ (or vice versa) might be an issue later on down the line. Republicans would throw a fit over the idea, and bring up all sorts of issues (her Wal-Mart board service, controversies over the cattle futures and Whitewater), and hobble the nomination.

The big changes I can see are health care (Because Hillary isn't running it anymore, so does Vice President Gore? How is health care reform changed, does Clinton get UHC? That would cause major butterflies down the road) and the scandals, especially the Independent Counsel thing, turning out differently. I can see no way that Hillary allows the Starr investigation to expand from Whitewater to Lewinsky, and that prevents Bill from facing impeachment.

Further thoughts?

(And no, I haven't been watching House of Cards! Whatever would give you that idea?)
 
Last edited:

Nofix

I thought the President couldn't name family to federal posts? That would probably be the first challenge in this exceedingly unlikely idea.
 

Locke01

Nofix said:
I thought the President couldn't name family to federal posts? That would probably be the first challenge in this exceedingly unlikely idea.
Click to expand...

It's technically illegal, yes. There is, however, nothing stopping Congress from granting the President a waiver of this requirement. Whether or not Bill could ever convince the Congress to grant Hillary such a waiver another thing entirely, and that would turn on a tiresome argument over whether or not she was qualified for the job. A politician with a bit of common sense in him would be well-advised to avoid such an obvious debacle in the making.
 

David T

Well, first of all, it's illegal. "A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official." And "'public official' means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress)..." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110 This ("the anti-nepotism act") was enacted in 1967 by a Congress that had become more conservative after the election of 1966, and did not want any more situations like that of John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.

Of course Clinton could ask Congress to change the law, but it would hardly be worth the political costs.
 

Napoleon IV

Nofix said:
I thought the President couldn't name family to federal posts? That would probably be the first challenge in this exceedingly unlikely idea.
Click to expand...

Although Clinton could point out that JFK named his brother Attorney General. Of course, this is still unlikely to go through, but it's not unprecedented.
 

Locke01

Napoleon IV said:
Although Clinton could point out that JFK named his brother Attorney General. Of course, this is still unlikely to go through, but it's not unprecedented.
Click to expand...

The federal law forbidding presidents to appoint relatives to positions in the federal government was enacted by Congress at the request of President Lyndon Johnson in 1967 in reaction to JFK's appointment of his brother.
 
black angel

black angel

David T said:
Well, first of all, it's illegal. "A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official." And "'public official' means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress)..." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110 This ("the anti-nepotism act") was enacted in 1967 by a Congress that had become more conservative after the election of 1966, and did not want any more situations like that of John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.

Of course Clinton could ask Congress to change the law, but it would hardly be worth the political costs.
Click to expand...

while no doubt Hillary would have been a fine AG, or really any post, and in OTL served as a kind of co-President to Bill, having the final word to the President on policy debates, even when during the height of the Lewinsky scandal when Hillary briefly moved out of the White House and was staying in Hawaii he called her for her views on handling Kosovo and if they should bomb or not

any ways, nether Bill nor Hillary would waste the time to get her into a formal post when her informal role was as great or greater than any office might allow
 

Westbrook 49

David T said:
Well, first of all, it's illegal. "A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official." And "'public official' means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress)..." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110 This ("the anti-nepotism act") was enacted in 1967 by a Congress that had become more conservative after the election of 1966, and did not want any more situations like that of John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.

Of course Clinton could ask Congress to change the law, but it would hardly be worth the political costs.
Click to expand...

Damn! I had forgotten about that one!
Thanks for posting the exact statute, it's helpful.

MoraesSarmento said:
Well, Frank nominated Claire and he wasn't even elected :p
Click to expand...

This is true! Although Cards is operating in a different universe, so maybe Congress didn't pass that legislation there.

black angel said:
while no doubt Hillary would have been a fine AG, or really any post, and in OTL served as a kind of co-President to Bill, having the final word to the President on policy debates, even when during the height of the Lewinsky scandal when Hillary briefly moved out of the White House and was staying in Hawaii he called her for her views on handling Kosovo and if they should bomb or not

any ways, nether Bill nor Hillary would waste the time to get her into a formal post when her informal role was as great or greater than any office might allow
Click to expand...

You're right, but I think if the Kennedy law wasn't on the books, it would have definitely occurred to them to try. I think that the Republicans would have cast the Clintons as being even more power-hungry, as giving Hillary a Cabinet Department (and not an out-of-the-way one either, but the Justice Department) would have been seen as a major overreach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top