White House wanted to fire all U.S. Attorneys

[Halliburton]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/12/2179/59305

<snip>
The e-mails also show Rove was interested in the appointment of his former colleague, Tim Griffin, as an Arkansas prosecutor. Sampson wrote in one e-mail that ``getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.''

Administration officials say they are braced for a new round of criticism from lawmakers Tuesday who may feel misled by testimony in recent weeks from Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and William Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general. Several Democrats, including Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), have asked for Gonzales's resignation in recent days.

The documents, which include numerous e-mails between Sampson, Miers and others in the White House counsel's office, show the firings plan dated from February 2005, when Miers's office brought up the question of whether U.S. attorneys should be replaced with new Republican appointees for Bush's second term.

That proposal was immediately rejected by Gonzales as impractical and disruptive, Justice officials said, but it led Sampson to send an e-mail to Miers in March 2005 ranking all 93 U.S. attorneys. Strong performers ``exhibited loyalty'' to the administration; low performers were ``weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.''; a third group merited no opinion.
<snip>

[Erika]

1. W/Gonzales wanted the judicial turned into bushbots

The hell with the Constitution. W/Cheney wants Dubai control of the U.S.

[riderinthestorm]

2. Holy shit. Smoking gun here. K & R

I know Clinton and GW fired all the attorneys under their watch when they came into office (to be replaced with a relevant D or R), but that * wanted to do it again in 2004?? I mean, :wtf:

[Erika]

4. Pay attention. Bush sought their firing because they went against W

All the attorneys were GOP appointees.

[Paulie]

6. Please - a change of administration

doesn't mean they are fired. Their term is the same as the president who appoints them, so once the administration changes, their job no longer exists. Clinton didn't fire a single one for no good reason. George W. DID, against precedent and tradition.

[riderinthestorm]

7. To both Erika and Paulie, I understand and recognize your points.

I was also trying to differentiate between the logical replacement of US Attorneys by an incoming administration, and what * has done. Replacing them in 2004 made no sense unless the * Admin was looking to exact political revenge against US Attorneys who weren't toeing the Admin line.

In any kind of normal time, these attorneys would have just kept on keeping on but instead these folks weren't being ultra loyalists. See Paul Krugman article about the US Attorneys who WEREN'T fired to get a full understanding.

[LiberalFighter]

3. I don't have a problem with any President firing the US Attorneys...

that are already in office when they are elected. I don't have a problem with them being fired when they are starting their 2nd term.

I do have a problem when they fire them in the middle of their term for no justifiable cause. And I have a problem with them replacing them without going thru the Senate process.

[Canuckistanian]

8. "without going thru the Senate process"

That's what makes this all the worse.

Having the powers to enact drastic measures and USING them for political purposes are two different things.

[BuyingThyme]

5. I heard about Schumer calling for the step-down.

Who else made that call?

[w4rma]

9. Liars. They would have rehired the zealots. The result would be the same. (nt)