The left and the media still trying to make a scandal out of nothing.

“WASHINGTON, March 3 ‚Äî After Daniel G. Bogden got the call in December telling him that he was being dismissed as the United States attorney in Nevada, he pressed for an explanation.

Mr. Bogden, who was named the top federal prosecutor in Nevada in 2001 after 11 years of working his way up at the Justice Department, asked an official at the agency’s headquarters if the firing was related to his performance or to that of his office. “That didn’t enter into the equation,” he said he was told.

After several more calls, Mr. Bogden reached a senior official who offered an answer. “There is a window of opportunity to put candidates into an office like mine,” Mr. Bogden said, recalling the conversation. “They were attempting to open a slot and bring someone else in.”

The ouster of Mr. Bogden and seven other United States attorneys has set off a furor in Washington that took the Bush administration by surprise.”

They are anything but, after six years of this kind of digging, mugging of the President by the MSM, I think not. Mr. Bogden knows full well that at any time for any reason – political or otherwise – he could have been let go. He should stop the whining and move on.

Of course The Traitor Times would love Congress to have power they don’t have:

“Summoning five of the dismissed prosecutors for hearings on Tuesday, the newly empowered Congressional Democrats have charged that the mass firing is a political purge, intended to squelch corruption investigations or install less independent-minded successors.

Interviews with several of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials, lawmakers and others provide new details and a fuller picture of the events behind the dismissals. Like Mr. Bogden, some prosecutors believe they were forced out for replacements who could gild r?©sum?©s; several heard that favored candidates had been identified.”

And? So this is news? Every President has exercised this right since it became their right. For whatever reason, even if they don’t like their face they can let ‘em go.

Then later in the article this gem:

“The Justice Department still appears to have an uphill battle in convincing lawmakers that its actions were justified. Several Congressional officials who have been briefed on the decision making said they were not persuaded that the firings were a well intended if botched effort to oust a few problem prosecutors among the country‚Äôs 93 United States attorneys.”

There is no “uphill battle”. The JD doesn’t have to convince the The “newly minted” Congress of anything. They can call all the folks they want, they have no power to reverse the preceedent and only look like vindictive BDS infected clowns on parade doing so.

Yet read on, there were (gasp!) reasons for letting them go!

Other prosecutors may have been vulnerable because they had had run-ins with the Justice Department, not over corruption cases against Republicans, but on less visible issues.

Paul Charlton in Arizona, for example, annoyed Federal Bureau of Investigation officials by pushing for confessions to be tape-recorded, while John McKay in Seattle had championed a computerized law enforcement information-sharing system that Justice Department officials did not want. Carol C. Lam of San Diego, who successfully prosecuted former Representative Randy Cunningham, had drawn complaints that she was not sufficiently aggressive on immigration cases.

Justice Department officials deny that the dismissals were politically motivated or that the action resulted from White House pressure.

Brian Roehrkasse, an agency spokesman, said, “These decisions were based on the individual concerns about each U.S. attorney’s overall performance. This included performance concerns about ineffectively prosecuting departmental priority areas, failure to follow departmental guidelines, or just overall concerns about an ability to lead and effectively manage a U.S. attorney’s office.”

United States attorneys have four-year terms but can be removed at any time, and for almost any reason.”

Exactly! Overall performance and get this failure to follow the guidelines of the department which are expressly laid out. They have to do with what the AG finds to be concerns or areas of investigative concentration. In other words you follow the sheet of music or you walk elsewhere. This is understood by every SA when they are appointed to the job. This doesn’t mean that they are manipulated or hand picked to avoid prosecuting of the preciding party. Heck, if Bush wanted to stop investigations he could have done so long before Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney and others who have fallen. He didn’t, the AG didn’t because unlike predecessors like Clinton and Reno that’s not what they are about.

Again, nothing illegal, unsual, or even sinister except in the wacky mind of the editors of the Ny Times who find problem here, but not when they release classified wartime information to the public.