Kinsley and Purgegate

KINSLEY AND PURGEGATE….I’m a little unsure of how to respond to this, but let’s try it this way. Let’s pretend it’s 1973. How does this sound?

Yes, the president fired the Attorney General. And his deputy. But they serve at his pleasure, after all. And remember, Kennedy fired the entire cabinet and replaced them when he took over. I didn’t notice any Democrats complaining about that.

Anyone buying that? No?

It’s the same deal with the U.S. Attorneys. Putting in your own people during a change of administration, as Clinton and Bush both did, is routine. Firing them in the middle of an administration — especially when you can’t explain why you did it and your damage control stories are comically implausible — looks pretty suspicious. Like maybe you did it to send a message about who should (Democrats) and who shouldn’t (Republicans) be investigated in cases of political corruption. And that, to paraphrase the Trickster, would be wrong.

Of course, maybe not. Maybe it’s all above board. But under the circumstances it sure seems worth asking a few questions about the whole mess under oath, doesn’t it?

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation