I have gotten behind on the unfolding story of the dismissal of US attorney’s by the DOJ–although I noted the early rumblings of the story (see here and here, for example). In the last several days there have been a number of stories that indicate that undo political influence on the part of members of Congress may have been involved, as well as ongoing questions about the AG’s role in the overall process. Two stories today, especially the one in WaPo specifically raises serious issues concerning machinations within the administration on this topic. It would seem to be quite clear that there were members of the administration actively seeking to sidestep checks and balances in regards to the appointment and confirmation of US attorneys. As such, this is shaping up as a clear example of a power grab by the executive.
Today, the NYT reports: White House Said to Prompt Firing of Prosecutors
The White House continued to defend its handling of the dismissals.“We continue to believe that the decision to remove and replace U.S. attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president was perfectly appropriate and within our discretion,” Ms. Perino said.
“We stand by the Department of Justice assertion that they identified the seven U.S. attorneys who were removed, as they have said, based on performance and managerial reasons.”
On Monday Congressional Democrats demanded more information from the White House about the ousters, calling on Mr. Rove to testify about any discussions he had had about federal prosecutors. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said he would seek a subpoena for Mr. Rove’s testimony if he did not appear voluntarily.
Justice Department officials have said they removed the United States attorney in Arkansas earlier last year to make room for a Republican Party lawyer and onetime adviser to Mr. Rove.
In the other cases, though, the department at first denied that the dismissals were performance related, and then said they were, citing managerial problems, lack of aggressiveness and conflicts over seeking the death penalty or enforcing immigration laws.
A major part of this story, not noted in the piece, is that the replacement of US attorney’s has been changed under the USA PATRIOT Act to give the AG the power to appoint replacements to these position for indefinite periods of time. Prior to the change in the law, that power went to a judge. So not only can the DoJ fire these people (that’s nothing new) they can now directly control their replacements in a way that avoids the judiciary entirely and that delays the influence of the Senate, possibly avoiding it altogether (that is very new).
This is a situation that clearly enhances the political power of the DoJ and the AG–and indeed, the executive branch in general.
That the White House has been looking at these new powers as a way to enhance their control of the US attorneys in an unprecedented fashion is clear (again, the new replacement process changes the equation as it short circuits checks and balances). Via WaPo:
Firings Had Genesis in White House
The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman.
Gonzales approved the idea of firing a smaller group of U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office in February 2005. The aide in charge of the dismissals — his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson — resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell key Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress.
Such a resignation is a red flag-espcially given Sampson’s involvement in this situation (see below).
The mass-firing plan was mentioned in the above-linked NYT piece as well. More on that topic from the WaPo piece:
Administration officials have portrayed the firings as a routine personnel matter, designed primarily to rid the department of a handful of poor performers.But the documents and interviews indicate that the idea for the firings originated at least two years ago, when then-White House counsel Harriet E. Miers suggested to Sampson in February 2005 that all prosecutors be dismissed and replaced.
Gonzales rejected that idea as impractical and disruptive, Justice officials said, but over the next 22 months Sampson orchestrated more limited dismissals.
Certainly the presence of the mass-firing possibility raises serious questions about the notion that the subsequent firings were routine, especially given the fact that we have seen evidence that political meddling, not performance issues, seem to be involved.
When there are e-mails circulating that clearly set the stage for a firing strategy, something is amiss:
Sampson sent an e-mail to Miers in March 2005 that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Strong performers “exhibited loyalty” to the administration; low performers were “weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.” A third group merited no opinion.At least a dozen prosecutors were on a “target list” to be fired at one time or another, the e-mails show.
Only three of those eventually fired were given low rankings: Margaret Chiara in Grand Rapids, Mich.; Bud Cummins in Little Rock; and Carol S. Lam in San Diego. Two were given strong evaluations: David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque, who has alleged political interference from GOP lawmakers, and Kevin V. Ryan in San Francisco, whose firing has generated few complaints because of widespread management and morale problems in his office.
This is disturbing: since when does loyalty to the administration rate as a qualifier for being a good US attorney? How about loyalty to the law and constitution?
Clearly the WH was motivated by the new statutory provisions that gave the AG appointment power. From a memo by Sampson:
“I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments,” he wrote.By avoiding Senate confirmation, Sampson added, “we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House.”
In other words: this was a conscious decision to seek to avoid checks and balances.
Technorati Tags: Checks and Balances, US Attorneys, DoJ, Alberto Gonzalez
Sphere: Related Content
March 13th, 2007 at 11:23 am
[...] Sampson is of interest, as he is at the center of the brewing scandal over the US attorneys–see here. Indeed he is now an “ex” because of said situation. [...]
March 13th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
What’s rotten is Our Lil Georgie. His attempt to remove all Federal Prosecutors is proof - again - that he intends to avoid any and all consequences of his actions. Just like he has done all his miserable, petty life.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
“…It would seem to be quite clear that there were members of the administration actively seeking to sidestep checks and balances…”
gee you think?
c’mon…this admin. has been side-stepping checks and balances since it was appointed by the supreme court.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
[...] The Burgeoning US Attorney Dismissal Story (There’s Something Rotten at the DoJ) [...]
March 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Iraq pre-war intelligence gathering
Cheney’s closed door Energy Policy meetings
Warrantless wiretapping
No-bid Halliburton contracts
Secret renditions
God knows how many signing statements
Silencing scientists and removing science from studies
And you’re SURPRISED that they got caught sidestepping checks and balances?
March 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I didn’t express any surprise, but simply analyzed the current situation.
Indeed, I have noted before that the administration has demonstrated an aversion to appropriate checks and balances.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:52 am
And let me say thank you to you for recognizing the problem - something that mpost right-wing blogs are still vehemently deluding themselves about.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
THANK YOU … you’re about the only person on either side of the political divide who has focused on that last-minute provision added to the Patriot Act expansion. Would these 8 attorneys even have been ousted if their replacements would have been named by a Federal circuit court judge instead of Gonzales? (And, my, how the poop would really hit the fan if an email turned up that told Harriet to cool her jets until Arlen had a chance to sneak that tweak into the Patriot Act.)
March 14th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
To me the most frustrating part of much of the coverage is the fact that it ignores the Patriot Act issue.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
EXACTLY! Yes, Clinton “fired” all 93 but every one of the replacements he named had to be approved by the Senate. The whole issue here is that the White House can now select Federal prosecutors who may be wildly unqualified and/or profoundly partisan and there’s no recourse and no accountability. It seems to me that the entire DOJ is now serving at the president’s pleasure instead of acting on behalf of the people.
Believe me, I share your frustration (and if the MSM really was as left-leaning as some would have us believe, they would have been all over the Patriot Act aspect of this like stink on a skunk!)
March 15th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
The connection was noted on althouse just hours ago (by me). It is obvious that someone put 2 and 2 together with the patriot act.
Now the question is WHO put that section into the Patriot Act and when?
Big question that now deserves an answer.