This one is even better than Gingrich's weirdo explanation for his "language of the ghetto" remarks recently. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was on Meet The Press Sunday and speaking about the totally reasonable dismissal of US Attorney Carol Lam. He pointed out:
"She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton"
These are not the reasons anyone is giving for her dismissal, by the way. However, Hatch's statements raised some red flags because a little easy research reveals she was never a campaign manger for Clinton, because at the time of the campaigns she was an Assistant US Attorney, and thus to participate in any campaign would have violated the Hatch Act. She never was a law professor and she has, actually, been a federal prosecutor for 18 years. So was this part of a disinformation campaign to distract us all from the political nature of these firings?
No no, of course not. According to a letter to MTP Hatch wasn't talking about Carol Lam, fired US Attorney, at all. No, he was talking about Alan Bersin, her predecessor. Bersin had been appointed by Clinton and was presumably fired when Bush came into office. As Rachel Maddow points out:
Given the massive media attention and debate about "Alan Bersin" recently, I can understand his mistake.
News of the correction should rip through the right wing blogosphere like wildfire. I bet Drudge has a spinning siren over item right now! But maybe this is the solution to the whole problem... it's all a big misunderstanding! Gonzalez, had he been involved at all with the decision, thought that he was firing THE PREVIOUS OFFICE HOLDERS. It happens. So let's just let bygones be bygones, shall we?
Once we re-impeach Clinton, if you know what I mean.