“You are missing my point.”
No I’m not. You stated it clearly, but now you have changed it.
Fact is, Berger was “prosecuted” (albeit given a pass). No US Atty was fired for refusing to prosecute him.
I think where you and I differ here is that while klintons butt got covered for some serious national security damage, I am quite willing to at least consider that it all might well go back as far as the april glaspie matter......and that if so, one bush admin might be complicit in letting berger slide to prevent whatever a real and total investigation and trial might have shaken out........in fact, I am quite suspicious that this is part of the reason that the current Bush’s DOJ allowed the slap-on-the-wrist.
Nonetheless, no clintonoid/dem was a bit unhappy with the way it shook out re berger, and if a US Atty was fired for declining to “prosecute” berger and others wound up changing that decision, this is the first I’ve heard of it or even seen it floated. To say that a US Atty was fired because berger wasn’t prosecuted is just plain incorrect, because he WAS “prosecuted”.
I did phrase it wrong... but I appreciate your seeing my actual meaning.
LLS