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 2 of 4)
16. 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
17. 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
18. yes, but you have to admit....people are READING those press bites, and listening to those speeches.
the overwhelming feeling right now among all us lil non affilliated peoples (the fence sitters, or "mild" so-and-so's ) is that theres shady things happening here.
now....DOES the president and his administration have the right to fire these people?
sure he does.
thats not my issue.
what i dont understand is why the stories have changed so many times.....unless theres something to hide.
now....since i think all you political astutes know more then i do....
whats going on....REALLY?
this has all of the flavorings of some sinister plot to lie about...well...something.
im not sure what yet....but yea.
the flavour is one of lies and suspiscion....and the public doesnt like the taste.
mme6546 at 10:56AM on Mar 16th 2007
19. Ken tries -"It's sad, What Clinton did (to fire all 93 US Attorneys), was different from SOP - but fine. "
Ken - you need to turn off Faux news and actually watch a real news show. Your spin is contradicted by no other than Gonzo's staff:
Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson (resigned two days ago), 1/9/07:
In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.
Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, 3/8/07:
Mr. Rove’s claims [last week] that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution.
Former U.S. attorney Mary Jo White, 3/5/07:
However, throughout modern history, my understanding is, you did not change the U.S. attorney during an administration, unless there was some evidence of misconduct or other really quite significant cause to do so.
SOP is that all 93 are fired at the beginning of a new President's term.
Whopps! There it is!
Bushthwak at 10:44AM on Mar 16th 2007
20. Good try at spin on Plame...
The simple fact is Libby got convicted by a jury of Americans.
And the Dick isn't far behind.
Perp Walk!
Bushthwak at 10:48AM on Mar 16th 2007
21. When are people going to see the "wag the dog" approach to the "news" reporting of the MSM? The grassroots Democrats are ready the march on Washington due to the failures of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to push their agenda and the media is putting the firing of underperforming, partisan hacks under the microscope. If Bush have fired them ALL, the media would have covered it like a third world military coup was happening. I feel any president should quit appeasing the media and represent everyday Americans for a change.
vbtaz at 11:02AM on Mar 16th 2007
22. Bushthwak...
Nice try, or I should say typical try.
What other president, besides Clinton, removed all the US Attorneys at the beginning of his Administration. All of them, at once??
The answer is none.
Even still, they can be fired for any reason, yes even political reasons. There is no need for cause, they can be fired for ANY reason, or none...
Yeah Libby was convicted by a jury for "crimes," but are you suggesting he was convicted for outing a CIA agent?? If so, you aren't bending reality, you are inventing your own version of it -- which is typical for today's detached left.
Your problem is clear in your second sentence. "watch a real news show..." Watch?? How about read?? And how about read transcripts, read official records?? I don't "watch" the news.
However, I guess you did vote because you wanted to make sure Libby was taken out and so that no Administration employees were fired...
Your party is lucky to have you...
mme6546, As far as how the Administration handles events / itself? They don't get any plugs. They could make helping an old lady across the street look bad. Regardless of the issue, they seem to stumble and "look guilty." This is a perfect example of where they do something they are entitled to do, and yet make it look dirty.
Ken Whiteside at 11:36AM on Mar 16th 2007
23. what I wait for is the total distruction of this country,with all the hate and ignorance I can not see a future for this country.we must get back to the Constitution.not to this system of ignoring it to suit some politacal agenda.hate is a thing that distroys all.
WILDCATT at 12:45PM on Mar 16th 2007
24. Do you know what they call the firing of 93 US attorneys? A Good Start! Fire'em all, wipe the entire government clean & start from scratch. It sure couldn't hurt.....
Sick Of It at 12:46PM on Mar 16th 2007
25. Gonzales should go, nor for firing political appointees, but for failing to prosecute the thugs who are stealing taxpayer's money inb Iraq with impunity.
According to the Government Accounting Office, $10 billion of American tax money has been wasted and stolen by American contractors in Iraq. GAO says that the practices that have permitted these crimes have been condoned and allowed by the executive branch. According to David Walker, Comptroller General, the GAO has been reporting these problems to Congress and the public for years.
Congress has ignored the problems or given lip service but no action. The media has shown little interest.
This problem highlights what this war is really about: not Iraqi oil, not democracy, not weapons of mass destruction, not terrorism, but transferring money from American taxpayers to campaign contributors. Wake up America.
Elton Carey at 2:35PM on Apr 11th 2007
26. That's amusing Ken -
Fram Slaon:
"Was the firing of eight U.S. attorneys by George W. Bush last December in any way comparable to the dismissal of the entire corps of U.S. attorneys by Clinton in 1993? Even the dumbest pundit in America should be able to figure out that the answer is no -- because every president receives the resignations of all political appointees, including U.S. attorneys, at the beginning of his term."
Especially when according to Golum himself -
Clinton replaced 123... "The 123 included 93 Republican appointees that the Democrat Clinton replaced when he began his first term, which is common in such a change of command.
By comparison, he said, “We’ve replaced a total of 128."
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20070316/NEWS/703160362/1010/NEWS05
Even Golum admits the Dimwit replaced 91 of the 93 Clinton Appointees at the beginning of his administration.
However - back to the REAL ISSUE which is -
"The Congressional Research Service, a taxpayer-funded service provided to members of Congress, investigated the precedent of US Attorneys who have not served their full four-year terms from 1981 through 2006. Over the 25-year period studied, the investigation identified 54 attorneys who did not serve their full term...
Of these, the report only found evidence of two attorneys being involuntarily dismissed: William Kennedy (dismissed in 1982) and J. William Petro (in 1984). Both were Reagan appointees."
http://www.buzzflash.com/archives/07/US_attrny_rprt.pdf
My...My... My!
Bad day for you Rethugly spinsters and dimsters!
BTW didn't Valerie Plame testify today?
BT at 1:07PM on Mar 16th 2007
27. Clinton fires 93 attorneys, while they were looking into white water, and his partners death, all records snatched in the middle of the night, hillary looses fbi files, then they just appear on her desk. Where were the democrates then, with the outrage. Janet Reno resign, Waco deaths. What else?
david nowak at 4:51PM on Mar 16th 2007
28. So, why did Kyle Sampson resign?
Steve J. at 2:00PM on Mar 16th 2007
29. Be still my beating heart!
Valerie Plame testifies and puts paid to another Rethugly lie that she was not a covert CIA Agent...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/washington/16cnd-plame.html?hp
Bushthwak at 2:18PM on Mar 16th 2007
30. Exactly BT, they serve at the pleasure of the president. Usually, when working for a president, your resignation letter it already written and submitted. Your bad day comes when you get the call the president has accepted your letter...
Which makes this issue a complete non-issue. A hint for those of you wishing to fuel the fire, you shouldn't be posting water... But while I don't need your help, it's appreciated anyway...
Clinton accepted all 93 resignations, in today's lingo "he fired them." That was unique. At least I haven't heard anyone mention a president that let them all go at once before -- like Clinton did. Some of you just try to throw out "It's normal," or "it's typical!" But of course you fail provide any examples...
As for the AP story on Rove, I'll wait for the retraction / correction. Though I am sure I will have to look for it, as I am sure you won't provide it.
Bad day?? for your links maybe, but little else.
Problem with people like you is you wear it -- "Rethugly?" Yeah it's clear you are the one to come to for the unbiased opinion on an issue...
Ken Whiteside at 2:27PM on Mar 16th 2007