All this hand wringing and soul searching over 7 fired political appointee’s is just plain ludicrous.
The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.
The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman.
Gonzales approved the idea of firing a smaller group of U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office in February 2005. The aide in charge of the dismissals — his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson — resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell key Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress.
Lawmakers requested the documents as part of an investigation into whether the firings were politically motivated. While it is unclear whether the documents, which were reviewed yesterday by The Washington Post, will answer Congress’s questions, they show that the White House and other administration officials were more closely involved in the dismissals, and at a much earlier date, than they have previously acknowledged.
Seven U.S. attorneys were fired on Dec. 7 and another was fired months earlier, with little explanation from the Justice Department. Several former prosecutors have since alleged intimidation, including improper telephone calls from GOP lawmakers or their aides, and have alleged threats of retaliation by a Justice Department official.
Well of course it was politically motivated. They serve at the pleasure of the President. If he and the administration feels they are not doing enough to further THEIR agenda they can be sent packing. Just as Reno did in 1994 when every single prosecutor was canned:
Last Tuesday, after being on the job only 11 days, Attorney General Janet Reno had the Justice Department moving and shaking. She requested the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country "to build a team" that represents "my views" and those of the President. Although expected eventually, the move triggered alarms at the Washington prosecutorial office, which has been probing the finances of a key Democratic floor captain, House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski. Reno insists there was "no linkage"’ between the dismissals and the probe, which insiders say will continue.
The President was advised to get rid of the same number but they ultimately decided against that. So they go for a lower number and it becomes a controversy. Only our liberally biased MSM could pump this story up to this ludicrous of a pitch.
Outside the Beltway has a well reasoned take on this:
So, here’s my understanding of the scandal:
- The president expresses displeasure that some of his political appointees are not doing their job.
- His White House Counsel suggests firing everybody, whether they’re doing their job or not.
- His senior strategist says not to do that.
- Staffers go through the records and identify the 7 of 93 prosecutors (7.53%) who aren’t prosecuting a whole category of violations of federal law.
- The Attorney General fires those 7 political appointees.
Am I missing something here?
Were these firings “politically motivated”? I suppose so, although only under the broadest definition of that term. Then again, they are political appointees, not career civil servants. Presumably, they have that status because it was understood that U.S. Attorneys are policy makers, assigned to not only carry out the law but respond to the orders of the Chief Executive of the United States.
If they were being fired because they were prosecuting the president’s friends, that would be a problem. Similarly, if they were fired because they refused to prosecute the president’s enemies, that would be a problem. If the president or the AG were “suggesting” that specific people be singled out for selective prosecution of crimes, that would also be of concern.
From what I’m reading here, though, it sounds like these people were simply refusing to investigate and prosecute the generic class of voter fraud cases. Why can’t political appointees have their appointments stripped for that?
If there were complaints of voter fraud and these prosecutors didn’t do enough to investigate the fraud then they should be fired.
They were not doing their job. Their appointments were stripped.
But the left and our MSM want to bombard us with the appearance of evil. That way impeachment hearings would seem reasonable to John Smith in Nebraska. This is the final end-game for the left and they are vigorously going about implementing it.
Case in point, Chuckie Schumer:
Schumer called it “almost unheard of” for a federal prosecutor with favorable reviews to be fired after a top presidential adviser like Rove received complaints about his performance.
“The more we learn, the more it seems that people at high levels in the White House have been involved in the U.S. attorney purge,” Schumer said Monday.
But as Protein Wisdom reminds us:
Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it.
Thankfully we now have the alternative media to counter this baloney.