Uh, let's see here. The Attorney General has denied that the firing of a number of Federal Prosecutors was politically motivated under oath, before Congress. That was back at the beginning of this controversy, before it was high enough on the horizon to be reported in mainstream media. Then it was revealed that a Senator and a Congressman both tried to pressure a New Mexico Prosecutor to hurry up a case so it could be used in the 2006 elections. Everyone denied this and then it became known as fact. Now other allegations by fired prosecutors are coming forth daily. The chain is going past the Attorney Generals Office direct to Karl Rove and the President. Carl was the conduit for complaints about prosecutors that weren't playing ball for the administration. It was revealed today that one of the cases affected by the firings was the Abramoff scandal. Early on in the birth of the scandal prosecution, in 2002, Prosecutor, Frederick A. Black was demoted when he began to poke his nose into the
Abramoffs' dealing in Guam which triggered the entire peeling of the rotten onion.
Now, conservative apologists are using the excuse that Clinton fired prosecutors too.
This is patently a false analogy and a potentially embarrasing one as well. The only reason to use it is that it will be repeated by people who don't know the reality. It is normal for a president to replace prosecutors when he enters office. Clinton did it when he was first elected and Bush did it when he was elected in 2000. It is totally irregular to dismiss prosecutors in the midst of investigations that might damage members of the presidents party or for not pursuing embarrassing investigations of ones opponent swiftly enough for political fodder. Nixon tried to do just that with Watergate, in a sense, this is Deja vue all over again.
The real tip off that something is really spinning out of control is when the Republicans start using the "Clinton did it, so it must be alright" defense.......
Now that's scary!