Hotline After Dark: A "Purge" Primer

If you're coming into the U.S. Attys scandal a little late and are feeling confused about what's going on, TV can help you out:

CNN's Roberts: "It is the smoking gun in the latest scandal to rock Washington, 144 pages of e-mails and memos showing extensive contact between the White House and the Department of Justice over the firing of the U.S. attorneys. It's so important, because members of Congress, suspicious that politics was behind the dismissals, had previously been told the White House wasn't involved" ("AC 360," 3/13).

CNN's Toobin: "There's a lot of circumstantial evidence here that suggests that some of these people, at least, were fired for not prosecuting Democratic politicians and not prosecuting Democratic voters for vote fraud. That's a political problem. It's not a legal problem" ("AC 360," 3/13).

MSNBC's Abrams: "U.S. attorneys are supposed to be able to act independently. They're supposed to be able to base their decisions about whether to prosecute, not to prosecute, whether to investigate, not to investigate, based on the facts, and not based on political pressure. And that's the real question here, is, is this administration starting to get into the nitty-gritty of telling federal prosecutors how to do their jobs, and then firing them if they don't like them?" ("Tucker," 3/13).

CNN's Arena explains the controversy behind DoJ CoS Kyle Sampson: "Lawmakers were incensed this morning when they found out there were e-mails dating back to early 2005 between Gonzales' chief of staff, Sampson, and White House counsel Harriet Miers, who, it turns out, had suggested all 93 U.S. attorneys be fired" ("Lou Dobbs Tonight," 3/13).

MSNBC's Olbermann: "Sampson ... strongly urged in a memo to [Miers] that Congress be bypassed in naming replacement attorneys, that the administration use a power deftly, quietly slipped into the Patriot Act in 2006, that allows the attorney general to name replacements without Senate confirmation. ... Sampson ... told a White House aide, 'If we don't ever exercise it, then what's the point of having it?' Three months later, the White House giving the firings a green light" ("Countdown," 3/13).

Newsweek's Wolffe: "This is a complete egregious abuse of the Patriot Act -- had nothing to do with terrorism" ("Countdown," MSNBC, 3/13).

CNN's Blitzer: "Democratic leaders want to look deeper into the Bush administration. They have their sights on hearings and on the White House deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove" ("Situation Room," 3/13).

CNN's Bash: "Since the beginning of the Bush administration, Democrats have viewed Rove as both political mastermind and master of dirty tricks. With e-mails suggesting he played a role in firing U.S. attorneys, Democrats see an opportunity to finally grill him" ("Situation Room," 3/13).

NBC's Gregory: "Any administration is within its rights to fire a U.S. attorney. They serve at the pleasure of the president. Former President Clinton got rid of the U.S. attorneys back in 1992 when he came into office in 1993" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 3/13).

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "While you can certainly fire a U.S. attorney for no cause or for good cause, you cannot fire a U.S. attorney when they are in the middle of a political investigation and you want to cut it off" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 3/13).

WH Counselor Dan Bartlett: "The decision to remove these seven U.S. attorneys was made at the Justice Department. They were made on an individual basis based on a totality of evidence from a management standpoint. And we stand by those decisions. Now we are more than happy to share information with the United States Congress. ... The role that the White House played was not to approve -- to craft a list or to add or subtract from the list, but the ultimately sign off on the list. And that's appropriate role" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 3/13). [EMILY GOODIN]