LiveWire

For those of you who watched the Studio B segment I did, you know that we spoke mostly about the controversy over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Attorney General Gonzales has said “mistakes were made” with the firings, and one of his aides has fallen on his sword, but this time the Dems don’t have to make anything up (a la the Plame/Wilson non-affair) to make the White House look bad.

I noted to Shep that I would normally look at accusation from Dems with a little cynicism, considering how often they make things up in an attempt to embarrass the president, but in this instance these who are concerned have a reason to be. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I’m more inclined to believe a nefarious motive and WH involvement in the firings because of WH involvement with the prosecution of our border agents, Ramos and Compean.

The White House this month appealed to some of its more vocal critics on the border-agent issue, including Phyllis Schlafly. The long-time activist and syndicated columnist wrote a column arguing “President Bush pardoned 16 criminals, including five drug dealers, at Christmastime, but so far has refused to pardon two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were trying to defend America against drug smugglers.”

Schlafly told WND she received a call Jan. 8 from U.S. Attorney Sutton…Jessica Echard, executive director of Eagle Forum’s Capitol Hill office, told WND she has received phone messages in the past week from Sutton, who said he was calling by request of Tim Goeglein, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison.

With this we have background that shows us President Bush’s admin isn’t beyond firing people or even prosecuting them for political reasons. After all, the WH and the president are in charge of pardons, How exactly can the WH claim any objective status when the admin itself is involved in assisting the prosecutor?

This is where politics enters the scene. And if it becomes relevant for the president over the border issue, of course he’s not beyond interference when it comes to punishing prosecutors who do not do the admin’s bidding. As some argue is the case the recent firings.

That said, it’s important to note there is precedent for firing all U.S. prosecutors when a new admin comes into office. That’s exactly what Janet Reno did for Bill Clinton in 1993, when she demanded the resignation of all 93 U.S. prosecutors. Firing a select few in the mid- or late-term has happened only twice before. It’s unusual, and it should be. Prosecutors should be able to proceed with their work without intimidation. When you fire specific prosecutors who happen to be conducting investigations you don’t like, or aren’t moving in a political manner the WH prefers, well, that moves us into an arena worthy of condemnation, no matter the letter after the president’s name. This is about integrity. Republicans found out in November what we’re willing to do when that element has gone missing.

For more links and background, Mahablog, a lefty blog, has one of the more comprehensive posts on the subject when it broke in January, and at least does not jump the shark on the issue. They also have full text of some NYT coverage that you would have to register and pay for if you were to retrieve it on your own.