ABC News reports that about-to-be-released emails show that the "idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged." Notice how, within a single sentence, an "idea" that apparently never got off the ground becomes a "plan."
Whatever its source, we know that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was rejected, and that only eight were let go. Thus, assuming that Rove did raise the idea of a mass firing, it's not clear why this would (in ABC's breathless phrase) "put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio." Presumably, "the imbroglio" pertains to what the administration did, not to a course of action it rejected.
UPDATE: You can read the Rove-related emails (none of which was writen by Rove) by following a link from the ABC News story. To summarize briefly, they show that Rove asked an aide how the Justice Department planned to proceed with the U.S. attorneys. He mentioned various possibilities, including replacing them all, without making a recommendation or commenting on their merits. The aide raised the matter with Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales' aide. Sampson said that he would like to replace 15 to 20 percent of them -- "the underperforming ones." In the end, they replaced fewer than 10 percent.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 4)
1. Won't fall for the bait and switch. Gonzo must go.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 10:25PM on Mar 15th 2007
2. You are so right -- "ideas" are not "plans."
Which is why we're still in Iraq.
zota at 10:28PM on Mar 15th 2007
3. Does the Patriot Act now allow the appointment of U.S. attorneys without Senate approval? I thought there were supposed to be checks and balances.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 10:48PM on Mar 15th 2007
4. As usual, the Bush administration is willing to endure a national scandal rather than speak harshly to people who hate them.
Webster: The Patriot Act doesn't allow for that, because that would be unconstitutional. It's also irrelevant, since U.S. Attorneys are not like judges. You can't parade them in front of Joe Biden and ask them 45 minute questions about how they interpret the law. There is no interpretation; the correct response for a U.S. Attorney to every question is "I will prosecute all crimes."
If Republicans had called for Janet Reno's resignation for deporting Elian Gonzales, it would not be a more stupid scandal than this.
HitNRun at 12:54AM on Mar 16th 2007
5. Last time I checked, a political advisor has the right to make a suggestion about political appointees even if he has no power to hire or fire them.
It's a little thing called the First Amendment to the United State Constitution. Unless it's been changed to cover everyone except Republicans, I think Karl has the right to say whatever he wants about anyone.
Last I checked Webster, people you support like the Dixie 'We're ashamned of the President' Chixs, John 'The troops are stupid' Kerry and Dick 'The troops run gulags' Durbin seem to have no legal problems saying some of the most hateful retoric they felt like saying.
You would think I would be mad about all this much-ado-about-nothing issue, but I'm not. I want to encourage your side and your media pals to keep it up. Do you realize how massively silly and churlish you look to the average American who is scratching their head over this nonsense?
Don't know about my fellow Conservatives/Republicans reading this, but I would say we have another National Guards Memo story in the making. The press (ABC at least), is having to start acknowledging that there is nothing illegal about the President firing attorneys who are political appointees because that is his right in the Excutive Branch.
The press and Democrats are going to exhaust themselves screaming about this, and at the end of the day the rest of the country are going to be laughing at them and tuning out the mainstream media even more.
I'll be laughing with them.
Haley37 at 2:09AM on Mar 16th 2007
6. As evidenced by the democrats posting here they know absolutely nothing about the constitution. The U.S. attorneys serve at the presidents pleasure. How can it be that Clinton fired ALL 93 attorneys and no scandal but Bush fires 8 and it's a huge scandal?
I do agree with webster on one point, Gonzo must go but not for his far left wing kook reason, he should go for not agressively going after Sandy Burgler and not going after all the leaks from the CIA that has put this country in danger.
Capitalist Infidel at 2:51AM on Mar 16th 2007
7. much posturing about nothing again!! where was congress when I got fired years ago?
bill kuchar at 8:31AM on Mar 16th 2007
8. Patronage in politics is an old story. When your party wins, many expect and demand the benefits which come with victory. US Attorney positions have always been doled out to the politically faithful of the party whcih wins. Lawyers contribute much time, influence and money in the process and expect the rewards. The position of US Attorney has always been one where the senior senator in the party in power gets to name the new US Attorney by recommending him/her to the president for appointment.
As the role of the federal government in criminal prosecutions has continued to increase, and the complexity of this law enforcement has advanced like crazy, the demands for truly professional prosecutors has also increased. Political hacks can no longer make the grade. At times the federal government has created strike forces manned by professional prosecutors in the civil service, for instance, to deal with organized crime and drug prosecutions because the US Attorney system was not sufficiently professional or above local political interference and corruption. Major eforms have been made in the selection process to assure that the US Attorneys have integrity and are not political hacks with suspect capabilities.
President Bush did not just automatically remove Democrats and Clinton appointees from US Attorney positions when he was elected. He broke with tradition and pursued a path to keep effective professionals. That made many senators in President Bush's own party very angry with him. It also made lawyers who supported the president in various districts very unhappy. The presidents own supporters will not defend him here because their ox was badly gored.
Not all US Attorneys offices are equal. The District in Wyoming is not Brooklyn, Manhattan or the District of Columbia. Law enforcement problems are different. In NYC, there are scores of politically active lawyers, many in mega law firms, and there livlihood depends upon their own clients being aggressively prosecuted. They much need to have clients who get in serious trouble in order to make money and to advance their own reputations. An ineffective prosecutor who does not investigate political corruption, organized crime and securities fraud is a disaster for many lawyers. The notion that these guys want to let up on such cases is very complicated, not simple.
What is happening here is that many want to return to a system blind political patronage. Preisdent Bush broke the system away from this and he will be forced to pay for it by all involved.
Mike Moroney at 8:55AM on Mar 16th 2007
9. Aren't you republicans EVER going to stop blaming Bill for GWB's many sleazy shortcomings?
Sally at 9:09AM on Mar 16th 2007
10. IT IS NOT WHAT THEY DID BUT HOW THEY DID IT, THE INTENT TO ADD LAWYERS WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE, THE WITE HOUSE AGAIN IGNORING THE RULE OF LAW.THE WHITE HOUSE BELIEVING ITSELF TO BE ALL POWERFUL
JIM WILLIAMS at 9:27AM on Mar 16th 2007
11. ok....wait a sec, because i think i may be confused.
actually...i know i am, because confusion is par for the course with this administration.
my take on things is/was this....that the pros. fired were fired for not doing satisfactory jobs....and the whole out cry started because there is substantial proof that they in fact WERE doing their jobs-quite well.
enter confusion:
if the president has the right and ability to fire them "just because".....why didnt he do just that, instead of trying to say its due to job preformance?
i think....
(and this is simply an opinion from an addittedly confused individual...)
i think there WAS political motivation....and they didnt want that to "come out" (as it in fact just did)
to me, its the same thing as with clinton....to be honest, ive never cared who put what in their mouth, where or why.....but that he LIED.
he lied, and got caught.
i think its clear that the current admin. is caught out in much the same way.
its not important why they lied...wether they were justified in firing those pros. by prescedence set, but merely wether or not they have been truthful.
now....am i confused, or have they in fact changed stories like 4 times already?
first it was "this is nothing....they're disgruntled."
then it was "there was no political pressure."
then it was "this is all gonzales' doing."
now it seems to be "there is precedent to fire all of them, damnit.....we only fired 9, so its all good."
now...please...
am i confused?
mme6546 at 9:35AM on Mar 16th 2007
12. It seems that not even the few honest Republicans left in COngress are buying Frodo's spin.
Two so far have called for Gonzo's firing, and several others have let it known they will join the chorus early in the News cycle next week.
It would seem that anyone still stupid enough to try the "But...But... Clinton...!" routine is simply demonstrating the power of brainwashing...
Again.
The simple fact is, that the Dimwit administration is the most corrupt in American history.
Ever look at how many of the Dimwit's top contributors are already in jail or under indictment?
Gong to be a lot of perp walks before Dimwit finally gets impeached...
Including Mr. Rove's.
Bushthwak at 9:39AM on Mar 16th 2007
13. It's not that they were replaced, everyone admits they can be replaced. It's why they were replaced.
They were replaced because they wouldn't use their US Attorney's office to help get Republicans elected. That they took their oath seriously and would not run investigations and seek indictments based on the election cycle. This offended the Karl Rove's of the administration and they had to go.
It may not be illegal but it's definitely unethical.
Not to mention that they wanted to replace them using Patriot Act interim appointments as an endrun around the usual process of involving homestate Senators in the appointment process. Way to make friends in Congress there Karl!
not the senator at 9:42AM on Mar 16th 2007
14. I am getting more than weary of using the Clinton Administration as the benchmark as to what the Bush Administration should or should not do. I think the whole of American history should be the benchmark against which this current Administration should be judged. Lest not we forget that the purging began the minute W. walked through those front doors.
Get something straight; the prosecutors have always served "at the pleasure of each President" and it was customary to serve a four year term, with "cleaning house" beginning at each term. The unusual thing happening here, is that these prosecutors were being let go in the middle of the second term, with complete dishonesty as to why they're being let go.
This Administration has been absolutely contemptible in its treatment of the American people, our customs, and especially, our LAWS. The sword they drew in 2001 will be the sword they're going to fall on by 2009. Thank God.
Suzanne at 9:45AM on Mar 16th 2007
15. It's sad, What Clinton did (to fire all 93 US Attorneys), was different from SOP - but fine. They work for the president - PERIOD. Interesting though that firing all 93 didn't garnish a peep from Democrats or the press. Even though one of the 93 was investigating the Clinton's and another was investigating a top Democrat in the House...
Still the president can fire those who work for him, just as Members of Congress can fire their staff without an investigation by the Executive Branch.
So here 8 were let go, not 93. And they were let go at the beginning of the second term -- so since they serve terms, basically they just weren't invited back for a second term. A bit less than "YOUR"RE FIRED!" that is the suggested tone here.
And now we know that White House staff were involved, that the idea was floated among staff. How is that news??
Do some here think that if you work at the White House or for the president that you can do or say anything as long as it doesn't have anything to do with the president or the Administration?? What a cake job that would be!!
No, we don't have Clinton emails, from when he let go all 93 US Attorneys. However it's not because none existed or that nobody in the WH discussed the firings, it's because nobody from the press asked for them -- and the WH didn't volunteer any.
For me the story here is how disjointed and fractured the Democrats are. They won the House, they won the Senate -- They are in "power." But how did the "First 100 Hours" go?? Have we cut off the food and supplies and brought the troops home yet?? You know because the left loves those "baby killers" in US Uniform and promised to bring them home... The first 100 hours sank, the troops are still there, in fact more are now in Iraq. And they will be there for some time -- Hillary Clinton just announced that yesterday, that the troops will be in Iraq for a long time.
So we have a frantic PR campaign on Scooter Libby... Another non-issue. Mrs. Wilson wasn't "outed" by Libby. Mrs. Wilson was outed by a Powell sidekick... And now we have this non-issue, the president axing 8 individuals who work for him. Yet both non-issues are hugh news stories and Democrats are making speeches, talking about hearings and investigations...
Seems Democrats and the press are desperate to come up with something, anything, to mask what elected Democrats aren't doing. I may be wrong about many things, but I am pretty sure that those who voted Democrat in the last elections didn't do so because they wanted Scooter Libby's neck. Or they were worried President Bush might fire some WH employees...
So the question is, will Democrat voters fall for this nonsense??
Ken Whiteside at 9:59AM on Mar 16th 2007