The Scandal Is, In Fact, A Scandal

I'd like to hop into the wayback machine to last week address this column by Mr. Kinsley. One of the most pernicious aspects of this ongoing scandal is how the administration engages in defense by detail. They just throw out misrepresentation after misrepresentation and hope one sticks in order to stall the opposition just that little bit by distracting them from more important matters.

One line of the defensive is, of course, "Clinton did it too". This is, of course, as bald faced a lie as any other (Like the claim that some of these attorneys were fired for not vigorously prosecuting voter fraud cases.).

Because, like most presidents, when he came into office he dismissed the previous administrations political appointees and replaced them with his own, including those at the DoJ. So, it's true, he did indeed fire all 93 federal prosecutors. And it's true the right-wing noise machine tried to scream and howl about a common practice because, following 12 years of Reagan/Bush, it had been a while since the executive branch had shifted parties and there'd been such a sweep. But it was ridiculous at the time and it's still ridiculous today because it's the same thing as the president appointing new cabinet members like the Attorney General or the Secretary of State - you don't keep the old guy's appointees, you get some of your own who you expect will carry out your policies. President Bush did the same exact thing once he got into office.

So while it's not uncommon for U.S. Attorneys to be dismissed there are a few exceptional facts here. The first is that, thanks to a provision in the Patriot Act, any prosecutors appointed would not have to be submitted for Congressional approval. Bush could, basically, appoint them by fiat. The other is that this is the first time it's happened not at the beginning of a president's first term but his second. Cleaning house and putting into place the people who'll fulfill your policies makes sense when you enter office, not when you come back. Then, it's obvious that it's all about payback and keeping these federal prosecutors as tools of the Republican political machine.

So, when Mr. Kinsley asks, "is there a humongous, crucial distinction between firing prosecutors in in your first term and doing it in your second?" Yes, there is.