From 1981 through 2006, a total of 54 US Attorneys were replaced, having not served their full four-year term. Fifty-two submitted resignations on request, two of them however, were involuntarily dismissed. Both were Reagan appointees. William Kennedy asserted that the CIA had pressured DOJ not to pursue a case, and was fired for the insubordination. J. William Petro was charged with telling a Cleveland businessman, Howard Schulman, that a friend of Mr. Shulman’s, Stanley Moss, had been indicted in Baton Rouge for selling counterfeit watches and was about to be arrested in Ohio. Justice Department officials said Mr. Schulman then passed on the information to Mr. Moss while an undercover operation was still in operation. Petro was summarily fired, and indicted for his misconduct.
Of the 52 others, 17 resigned to become federal judges, one resigned to become a federal magistrate, six left to accept other positions in the executive branch, four sought election, two left to serve in state government, one died and 15 left to return to private practice.
Of the remaining 8, two were dismissed by the president, who was not requested to give a reason.
Three resigned because of news reports regarding questionable personal actions. Larry Colleton resigned under pressure after grabbing the throat of a TV reporter, who was questioning him about decisions in the USA’s office. Kendall Coffey was accused of “biting a topless dancer on the arm,” and resigned. Colleton and Coffey were both Clinton appointees.
Frank L. McNamara, a Reagan appointee, resigned over marijuana smoking allegations, admitted its use, and faced firing or resignation.
Umberto Garcia resigned. No explanation seems to be available. Thomas M. DiBiagio (MD) likewise left no paper trail, nor did Roscoe C. Howard (DC). These were all Bush43 appointees.
While there is rampant speculation and a considerable quantity of mumbled allegations and demands for investigation from numerous puffed-up Democrats, we have little news as of this writing regarding the eight recent firings by Bush43:
It seems really STRANGE that Diane Feinstein is now talking out of the other side of her face regarding Lam, when she had previously, and PERSONALLY, questioned Lam regarding her prosecutions of illegal alien felons. While there are allegations and intimations that Lam was fired over her prosecution of Foggo (http://proteinwisdom… and others), suddenly Feinstein is hoping nobody will notice that she was upset with Lam over the illegal alien felon thing.
? We know Carol Lam (SoCal) has been accused of not aggressively enforcing immigration laws along the Mexican border, and there is quite a bit of truth to the allegation. Both a Republican Congressman and Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein have taken umbrage with Lam about this. She has taken the position that she will not prosecute illegal aliens accused of fewer than two felonies. We are also aware that she led the charge against Randy Cunningham. But as to allegations of Kyle Sampson’s alleged involvement in a cover-up, every time I try to chase that line, I find a rabbit-trail to nowhere. My position is, the jury is still out, and all the buzz is over not much of anything but Democratic Hot Air – at this point.
? We THINK we know that H.E. Cummins III was fired for cause. There are unsubstantiated allegations that Rove wanted him out so he could install J. Timothy Griffin, one of his buds and a political ally. Again, the jury is still out, and I see a lot of FOUL Democratic Hot Air here!
? DK Bogden of Nevada is yet another case involving rampant speculation. There are unsubstantiated rumors that Bogden’s record had not been reviewed, and McNulty verifies that HE has not reviewed Bogden’s performance. The rest is speculation. Again, the jury is still out.
? We know Pat Fitzgerald (know him all too well, and all too frequently!) has been playing self-important roles in trying to indict a VEEP aide, and we know he has not really been successful in proving his allegations, though he has grand-jury-shopped for quite some time to get the indictments. If this is above-standard performance, how bad do you have to be to get fired?
A quote from Karl Rove:
“Look, by law and by Constitution (sic), these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys – there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys — that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123. I mean, this is normal and ordinary.
It would appear that the US Attorney for Las Vegas was fired for lax standards – Vegas is a target for both organized crime, and for terrorism. We don’t KNOW anything yet, however, dispite all the – again – democratic Hot Air.
it is greatly reduced in value by your failure to link to ay of your sources. Seems clear that much of your info for the 1981-2006 period comes from the just-released Congressional Research Service report that I just posted about. I’d be interested in the rest of your sourcing. I can’t recommend or front-page this until you add in some links.
Sorry, David. I will try to correct that oversight by this time tomorrow evening. I’m under the wx with the flu, and just too sick to sit up much longer! Helluva time of year to have to deal with THAT! (Damn those neocon excuses, anyway!)
<
p>
You’re right about the CSR, BTW.
I edited my dairy this AM, and tried to insert references, and a couple of additional coments. I THINK I was successful — I’m still learning how your editor works (The only ‘computer’ I grew up with was a slide rule! 🙂 )
Thanks for the catch.
CHuck
You answered your own questions and frankly proved your inferred suspicions (that only Clinton fired all 93 USAs at once) WRONG.
<
p>
Now if you can’t see past your partisanship and not admit that the current situation–phones calls from a Senator and Congresswomen inquiring about an indictment before the election, contradictions and back tracking by the AG and the White House, involvement of the key political operative in non-partisan criminal areas–does not pass the smell taste, then I question this opinion you have of yourself. Four times…huh?
Frank, I was nice to you until your personal attack of the other night. I’ve even forgiven you for that, and am sorry you got reamed for it!
<
p>
But as to your comment, there is a LOT of stuff coming down from both sides on this issue, and with about 98% of it being bovine feces, its getting just a little difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Try to help . . .
<
p>
Oh, and my IQ is not REALLY four times yours . . .
<
p>
Chuck
awfully tough not to comment on your IQ when you can’t identify who the real culprit is. Let’s blame it on the flu…
<
p>
BTW: nice post
…I did not attack you the other night–unless you can supply proof. You maybe confusing me with raj. I will give you a pass because you said you were sick. If you weren’t ill, given you fixation of defending possible political interference in criminal investigations and your confusion with who you correspond with, I would have to suspect that raj did in fact have a point.
Frank, I most humbly and profusely apologize. Flu sux!
Best,
Chuck