ABC Breaking...Rove proposed firing all 93 attorneys Jan. 2005

[Frustratedlady]

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

NEWLY DISCLOSED E-MAILS SHOW THAT THE IDEA OF FIRING ALL 93 U.S. ATTORNEYS WAS RAISED BY WHITE HOUSE ADVISER KARL ROVE IN JAN. 2005

http://abcnews.go.com?CMP=EMC-1396

[Blue_In_AK]

1. It would have looked better for them

if they HAD fired everybody in Jan. 2005. It wouldn't look so much like a partisan witch hunt at this point.

[sandnsea]

3. Focusing on the 93

is making Schumer look like a partisan witch hunt though.

[ripple]

6. I wish someone would focus on the other 85

There's bound to be plenty of dirt there.

[Frustratedlady]

5. But should Rove be the one who would propose such an idea?

That seems to be over-stepping his place. I could see carrying out a proposal by George, but not for him to be pushing it through emails or on that cell phone that's connected to his ear.

[LSparkle]

8. Right -- and was it Gonzales' place BEFORE HE WAS A.G.?

He was still Dimson's personal lawyer when this was being discussed -- he still hadn't been confirmed as Attorney General yet.

Curiouser and curiouser it all becomes ... bwahahahaa!

[cascadiance]

11. My guess is that Rove had his fingers heavily in the Patriot Act "updates"...

... that gave them extreme unchecked powers in appointing replacements. This would have just been "part 2" of his efforts on the road to instituting fascism here.

[NobleCynic]

17. Yeah, I think you're right

But (thankfully?) they didn't choose to do it that way. One has to wonder whether or not it is a good thing that their criminal and fascist tendancies are so brazen. On one hand, they're far too clumsy to hide anything it seems, on the other hand, the American people have put up with this for so long, it makes you wonder how much more they would be willing to tolerate. As long as we still have our gasoline, our TV, and our internet, it seems the majority of the country is perfectly willing to sit back and watch our democracy slip away.

[Richardo]

2. That would have been a lot cleaner than this crap they've gotten into

...glad they didn't do it :D

[DemKR]

4. Guess I owe an apology to Harriet Miers then

It was not her idea.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. No way!

I'm shocked, shocked!

[Raven]

9. Let's get some things straight here on DU

The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They are political appointments. Usually, when an administration changes, the US Attorneys change. A president can replace a US Attorney any time he wants to...at the beginning or in the middle of his term or anytime, actually. The President can replace a US Attorney if he doesn't like the color of his tie...or his "loyalty"...no crime here, so far. Carl Rove's involvement with US Attorney appointments is no big deal, in fact, it is business as usual. Where this thing goes off the rails is when US Attorneys are interfered with, pressured to do certain things in a partisan way, when they are told to move a criminal investigation in a certain way. That's the problem...that's what Congress has to focus on and dig into. The fact that Carl Rove was involved means nothing unless it can be shown that he attempted to influence an investigation and when he couldn't he retaliated.

WE need to stick to the main tent here and avoid the sideshows!

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. Who cares if it's legal or not, it makes jr look even worse.

Why pass up any opportunity to shoot some shit in their direction? It's all good, news has it that it's upsetting bush, what could be better?

[Raven]

12. Oooh, I agree with you...

I just love this, but, we need to keep our collective eyes on the ball so that we can nail them.

[jberryhill]

15. Because this makes it look stupid

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00612F73C540C778EDDAA0894DB494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Bill


ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS

March 24, 1993, Wednesday
By DAVID JOHNSTON, (Special to The New York Times); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 1053 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, the ...

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. The details don't matter. It's all about the headlines.

Jr is on the frying pan & nobody seems to know exactly why. It's great!

[Richardo]

13. That's not strictly true...

True, it is NOT illegal, but it's a political problem if they get fired anytime before the end of their term unless it's for very compelling reasons.

Jeffrey Toobin explains it much better than I: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/otsc.toobin/index.html

[jberryhill]

14. It's about the firing of ones they had already appointed...

...and interference with investigations.

Janet Reno DID fire all of them.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00612F73C540C778EDDAA0894DB494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Bill

ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS

March 24, 1993, Wednesday
By DAVID JOHNSTON, (Special to The New York Times); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 1053 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, the ...

[frylock]

16. are you sure it wasn't khalid sheikh mohammed who made the proposal?

[Ninja Jordan]

19. Um, so?

[tbyg52]

20. I dunno, and especially coming from ABC

This just sounds like smokescreen to me. "We were gonna change 'em all out at the start of the new term, which others have done. So why is everybody getting so agitated because we decided to only replace a few?" That's how it plays to me.

[LiberalFighter]

21. There are freepers that believe Bush didn't clean house in 2001

They believe the firings were to get rid of Democratic US Attorneys.

[fuzzyball]

22. Probably perfectly legal, but highly political....n/t