Funny how the New York Times is breathless about the recent firing of seven…yes SEVEN…federal prosecutors:
After Daniel G. Bogden got the call in December telling him that he was being dismissed as the United States attorney in Nevada, he pressed for an explanation.
Mr. Bogden, who was named the top federal prosecutor in Nevada in 2001 after 11 years of working his way up at the Justice Department, asked an official at the agency’s headquarters if the firing was related to his performance or to that of his office. “That didn’t enter into the equation,” he said he was told.
After several more calls, Mr. Bogden reached a senior official who offered an answer. “There is a window of opportunity to put candidates into an office like mine,” Mr. Bogden said, recalling the conversation. “They were attempting to open a slot and bring someone else in.”
The ouster of Mr. Bogden and seven other United States attorneys has set off a furor in Washington that took the Bush administration by surprise.
Summoning five of the dismissed prosecutors for hearings on Tuesday, the newly empowered Congressional Democrats have charged that the mass firing is a political purge, intended to squelch corruption investigations or install less independent-minded successors.
Why is this funny?
Because they have failed to recall, I would call it selective memory loss, the 1993 firing of all 93…yes, NINETY THREE, federal prosecutors by one Clinton appointee named Janet Reno:
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.
Were the Democrats issuing subpoenas to all 93 attorneys back then?
Funny how that selective memory thing works huh?
But alas, seven were let go because they didn’t meet expectations. Plain and simple:
Discussions began in October at the Justice Department about removing prosecutors who were considered flawed or deficient in carrying out administration policy by law enforcement officials, lawmakers and others, several officials said. The White House eventually approved the list and helped notify Republican lawmakers before the Dec. 7 dismissals, officials said.
I mean why would a political appointee be expected to carry out the administrations policy? That’s not their job or anything is it?