Rove's mention of 120+ fed prosecutors fired during Clinton years.... WTF was he talking about???

[arbusto_baboso]

I mean, I know he's full of shit, and just trying to save his own skin at this point. But can anyone tell me what kind of myth he's trying to perpetuate, so I can counter the Bushbots ad nauseum repitition of this around me? What's behind the comment and the number?

[Lasher]

1. He's talking about normal turnover

It is customary for every new administration to replace all the USAs of the prior administration. Rove is trying to get people to believe this is the same thing as the selective mid-term purge of USAs who were not 'loyal enough' to him and Junior.

Firing of USAs prior to expiration of their 4 year term is unusual but not unheard of.

[IWantAChange]

3. Dead right Lasher - also - the Senate confirmed those new appointee's - unlike these hacks.

[SharonAnn]

8. Right. The significant difference is that these aren't subject to Senate confirmation! That's huge

It means that they can put in the most unqualified and partisan hacks without any review or approval.

Before, at the beginning of a president's term, his appointees had to be confirmed by the Senate, so that pretty much kept out the most unqualified and egriously partisan hacks.

[Atman]

2. I believe there are 93 of them, and he fired them all

It is common practice at the beginning of a president's term. The reason is, if the president is an environmentalist, for instance, he'll want USA's of similar idealogy. What Bush did was way beyond this, in mid-late term, clearly for retribution against people who would not politicize their positions by going after democrats. That is the key. That is the spin you must do your best to counter. We have the smoking gun on BushCo and Rove and their deliberate abuse of the "president's pleasure."

.

[Botany]

4. Red Herring

[itcfish]

11. Love It!

The Red Herring

[Skink]

5. Didn't they customarily replace people then fire the ones that didn't play ball?

[Lasher]

6. No, it's never been that way before

USAs have been replaced midterm in the past but the cases have been rare and all have been cases of moral and/or professional failings on the account of the attorneys. Never before have there been cases of failure to 'play ball' politically.

[TankLV]

7. Umm - the "123" number is from the CURRENT WAR CRIMINAL currently occupying

OUR White House, not Clinton.

Blatently LYING again...

and the 123 is UNPRECEDENTED, also...

[Old and In the Way]

9. According to a post at Washington Monthly-

There were only 2 that were forced out after Clinton made his initial changes.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/010931.php

As it happens, the Congressional Research Service has just released a report on this. It appears two resigned under pressure -- one because he grabbed a TV reporter by the throat on camera, and the second having been accused of biting a topless dancer.


A wholesale changing out of the USA's is totally understandable. They reflect the priorities of the new President and his agenda. Neither Party wants to have the Federal Lawyer's running their own agenda that might be diametrical opposed to what the newly elected President is voted into office to accomplish.

I understand why they are trying to conflate the issues...they are as wrong on this as they were on Valerie Plame. It must really suck to have to support the Organized Crime Party.

[DemoTex]

10. No GOP syllogism is complete without a premise blaming Clinton.

Period.

[Dr Fate]

12. DEMS need to invite him to say that again- under oath. n/t

n/t

[CATagious]

13. here's an unbiased breakdown of replacements

...since 1981:

http://www.buzzflash.com/archives/07/US_attrny_rprt.pdf