Reply #6

It doesn't mean they all were partaking of the goods, just that they may have known about those who were, and perhaps either facilitated the misconduct or willfully ignored it.

It could simply be one of those "loss of confidence" reliefs for cause--someone wasn't keeping track of subordinates when they should have been. It's unpleasant to sack someone who shirks their responsibility, particularly when they're not the ones actually participating in the misconduct, but there can be no exceptions. Particularly now. Obama will be out in the public eye a great deal between now and the general election, there can be no fuckups, no mistakes, no sloppy or lazy secret service agents.

That's if the report is accurate, of course. It does seem like a large number to me as well.