Hmm. This prosecutor firing thing seems to have precedents.

[Kablooie]

From Time Magazine

Swift Justice
Monday, Apr. 05, 1993


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.

Hmm.

No judgement here. Just -- Hmm.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. SOP...

At the start of a new administration.

[Dora]

4. That's an important distinction, "New administration."

Thanks for pointing that out. I think it's important to remember this.

Bushco has been in power since 2002. Any USA purgings and new team-making should have occurred then.

This mid-administration skullduggery stinks to high heaven, and lucky for us that those criminal boors have left behind a trail of fingerprints, footprints, and blinking neon arrows pointing out their misdeeds for us.

[tanyev]

2. Did they do the same in 97 after winning a second term?

[Lasher]

5. Standard term of a US attorney is 4 years.

I don't know if it's a convention for them to serve second terms when a POTUS is re-elected.

Edit: I don't believe Junior's USAs were replaced in January 2004.

[tanyev]

9. People who are trying to compare this to the Clinton administration

should be researching what happened at the beginning of his second term. It would be a more relevant comparison.

[TheBaldyMan]

14. that's SOP of the GOP - distraction tactics - blame Clinton

because a blow-job is far worse than war crimes.

[Lasher]

15. I'm not picking up what you're laying down

The USAs now in question were let go during their normal 4 years terms, not at the end of one. :shrug:

[tanyev]

17. It seems to me that the OP is trying to compare something that

regularly happens when a new administration comes in to the current situation and I don't think they are the same at all. Maybe Warpy's explanation at #13 is more clear.

[Lasher]

19. OK thanks. I thought you were saying the opposite.

Must be all that beer I swilled last night. :beer:

[tanyev]

20. This is the third time I've been misunderstood on this topic.

I'm starting to think it's me. :silly:

[Lasher]

21. Maybe if you talk down to us like we wuz 3rd graders...

You think the drugs will help and they just make everything worse. :crazy:

Peace. It's still a good idea. :hippie:

[Nite Owl]

3. A new administration always

does that.

[AndyA]

6. This is normal behavior.

A new administration always places the U.S. Attorneys they want in office. Normally, those positions stay put until the next administration takes over.

It is not normal to pick and choose replacements mid-term.

Something stinks worse than the dumpster behind a low price sushi restaurant.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. "the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys" vs. the resignation

of a select eight or nine. Gonzo would have been safer to have stuck with the 93, but instead pared it down to about 10%. What was it that prompted him to keep 90% and fire the others? Hmmm...

[MaineYooper]

8. Yet for all the complaints, Rostenkowski was indicted in 1994 ...

and eventually convicted. (and unfortunately, ultimately pardoned at the end of the Big Dog's second term)

So apparently the changeover of prosecutors (which others have already pointed out is standard at the start of a new administration) didn't really de-rail the investigation.

[TheBaldyMan]

10. The difference is that was during a changeover, not while investigating politically sensitive cases

that's the difference and it's a BIG difference.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. No, there is a turn over of all US attorneys with the transition of administrations.

These were firings of current US attorneys for their 'failure' to obey the administration and other GOP big-wigs. There has been only 5 firings of US attorneys in the past 25 years. Some of those were of attorneys who had been accused of law breaking or moral failings.

[kirby]

12. This is different

Its established that when a new administration comes in they clean house and appoint their own. However, this is different for several reasons:
1) It appears the firings were motivated against members who were investigating Republicans or not acting fast enough on Democrats
2) The firings were done using a new provision of the Patriot act which would bypass Senate confirmation. Supposedly this provision was part of 'continuity' of government and was meant to be used if some disaster occured, not as a means to circumvent the checks and balances.
3) Gonzales testified under oath that all new appointees would be Senate confirmed - he purjured himself.
4) Gonzales said the changes were due to 'performance issues' which we are starting to see is a lie.


BTW: Clinton pardoned Rostenkowski (who served at least 15 months in 'prison').

[Lasher]

16. You laid that out well, kirby

:thumbsup:

[Warpy]

13. This is happening SIX YEARS into Stupid's reign

A certain amount of political housecleaning is done by every incoming administration, especially when the party control changes. Some of the fired prosecutors are even Stupid's appointees.

If it took them SIX YEARS to discover "incompetence, foot dragging" then the problem lies with an oblivious administration.

We all know the firings are political. Here in NM, Iglesias was fired for failing to rush the Robert Vigil investigation to give Heather Wilson good press and a Democrat to shriek corruption at. Yeah, Vigil was corrupt, doing business the way his GOP predecessor told him to and never thinking it might be illegal to take bribes and kickbacks, and he had to go. However, rushing the investigation might have made it sloppy and Vigil might still be in office and accepting bribes.

The timing and the political overtones are what make this an outrage.

[Newsjock]

18. M*tt Dr*dg* is the MSM's assignment editor -- don't fall for it!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/wapo_reporter_m.php

... But if we're perfectly aware that Drudge is the primary sludge line for campaign oppo research, and if we're perfectly aware that some Drudge stories are massive distortions or outright falsehoods, shouldn't we be trying to prevent Matt Drudge From Ruling Our World, rather than granting him continued domination over us and then writing paeans to Emperor Drudge's power? Isn't it time that the big news orgs shipped Drudge off to Elba?

(in the comments) ... Today's meme: "Clinton fired prosecutors too!"
The link is to an NYT story from March 1993, which notes a few paragraphs down that it's routine to ask for appointee resignations when the administration changes. (Well, duh)

[Marrah_G]

22. The difference is this....

All the Clinton Appointees had to be approved by Congress. The Patriot Act has allowed a loophole to let Gonzalez appoint whomever he wishes to replace those fired without any congressional approval.

That is the difference.