About those fired U.S. Attorneys

Power Line ^ | March 13, 2007 | Paul Mirengoff

[neverdem]

The alleged scandal over the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys has made it to the front page of the Washington Post as today's top headline. Let's take a look at the Post's story and the "scandal."

The Post breathlessly informs us that the "Firings Had Genesis in White House." Reading on, we learn that President Bush told Attorney General Gonzales he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud invesitgations. Voter fraud is a serious offense, and both political parties say they oppose it. So it seems perfectly proper for the president to pass along a complaint that some prosecutors weren't pursuing such investigations. The question would then become how Gonzales followed-up and whether he did so fairly. More on this in a moment.

The Post also says that Harriet Miers recommended that all U.S. Attorneys be fired. Gonzales wisely rejected this blunderbuss recommendation. It's worth noting, though, that such a mass firing would not have been unprecedented. President Clinton, through Janet Reno, fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. They didn't call Clinton "Slick Willie" for nothing.

This time, eight prosecutors lost their jobs. It's not implausible to think that out of 93 U.S. Attorneys, eight might be good candidates for replacement. But let's take a quick look at some of the specifics. According to the Post, three of them had low ratings -- Margaret Chiara in Michigan, Carol Lam in San Diego, and Bud Cummins in Little Rock. Cummins was replaced by Tim Griffin, whose career Karl Rove apparently wanted to advance. There's nothing novel in appointing a rising star with good connections to the job of U.S. Attorney. I've seen no evidence that Griffin was unqualified and, as noted, Cummins had received a poor rating.

Two of the fired prosecutors -- Kevin Ryan in San Francisco and David Iglesias in Albuquerque -- received strong evaluations. But according to the Post, Ryan's firing "has generated few complaints because of widespread managment and morale problems in his office."

The focus instead is on Iglesias because, in addition to the strong evaluation, he was not on the original list of prosecutors recommended for removal by Gonzales' aide Kyle Sampson. Rather, he apparently was added as a candidate for removal in response to complaints from New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici and other New Mexico Republicans that he was not prosecuting enough voter-fraud cases.

Is the firing of Iglesias a genuine scandal? As David Frum notes, it depends on the facts: was there a serious problem of voter fraud in the state, was Iglesias sluggish in dealing with it, and did the administration act even-handedly by insisting that its U.S. Attorneys adequately deal with serious allegations of voter fraud lodged by both political parties?

Until we see good evidence that the answer to one or more of these questions is "no," the firing of Iglesias is not scandalous.

UPDATE: Jeralyn Merritt, a liberal blogger and criminal lawyer whose work I respect, argues that

The travesty of the current U.S. Attorney firing scandal is not that U.S. Attorneys are being replaced. That is expected after an election, such as the one in 2004. It's that it's happening in 2007. . .In 2007, there should be no replacements, except for any U.S. Attorneys who proved to be unqualified.

But Merritt doesn't really explain why this is so. She agrees that U.S. Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the President." So why shouldn't a U.S. Attorney be replaced at any time if he or she is not performing well overall, or if his office is plagued by morale problems, or if she is not enforcing the immigration laws, or if he is not dealing adequately with substantial allegations of voter fraud? That's the way it works for all other presidential appointees; why not U.S. Attorneys?

The issue should be the merits of the individual decisions, not the violation of some presumption that U.S. Attorneys will only be removed at a designated point in the political cycle.

To comment on this post, go here.

Posted by Paul at 08:39 AM

[ClancyJ]

Oh yes he did.

In fact, I tended to believe the media that he was merely an empty suit led by those around him. I did not have a clue that he was religious. I remember hearing that he slept through meetings.

In those days, I was not "into" politics - I learned from the sound bytes in the media. So, I never knew until much later that a great president had occupied the office.

[DJ MacWoW]

I wasn't into politics much in those days either but Reagan was known as The Great Communicator. If you Google it you get Reagan tributes.

[DJ MacWoW]

The press did try to muzzle Reagan but he wouldn't let them. So they tried making him look a fool saying he fell asleep in meetimgs. He went on camera and said: "I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting."
Reagan was much more visible and verbal than Bush.

[ClancyJ]

Well, that is that. Reagan is gone.

We have a George Bush and I am thankful we had him as I can not imagine going through 9/11 with Al Gore.

We failed in not giving support to him and in not fighting the democrats each and every turn. So much easier to feel we are being conservative by threatening to withdraw support if Bush does not do............

We are a bunch of idiots who will never, ever be able to band together and fight. We are lazy, childish, and unrealistic.

And the democrats never give up - but, oh, we do. You see it was because Bush was not perfect - not anything to do with our laziness, childishness, and total inability to stand and fight.

[DJ MacWoW]

I can not imagine going through 9/11 with Al Gore.

Oh Lord! The very thought!

We failed in not giving support to him

WE?! Listen, GW palmed off the "Uniter" crap on people that trusted him. The voters. WE have been screaming since he let Clinton off the hook for trashing the WH. DON'T even go there.

[ClancyJ]

As I have said many times on here. If you want only to blame George Bush - go to DU.

I will not waste time giving you more and more opportunity to bash the only man in Washington doing anything FOR us. You don't complain about the congress, you don't complain or fight the democrats - you, in your superiority, choose only the cowardly, easy attacks on George Bush.

You are not needed here if that is your goal.

[cookcounty]

"we learn that President Bush told Attorney General Gonzales he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud invesitgations"

The Dems are really after Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico) and her compalaining about the US Attorney's office. There were a lot of irregularities in 2000, 2002, and 2006 in New Mexico. I don't believe the US Attorney ever moved on this, at least I never heard a thing about it, and I wondered why.

[DJ MacWoW]

You don't complain about the congress, you don't complain or fight the democrats - you, in your superiority, choose only the cowardly, easy attacks on George Bush.

And you know this how? That's some of the silliest crap that I've read in awhile. I wasn't elected President. Fighting Dems wasn't my job.

You are not needed here if that is your goal.

Last time I checked, JimRob runs FR.

[DJ MacWoW]

AND, I'm not a Republican. I'm a Conservative. And no man is my god.

[ClancyJ]

And apparently your job is to trash George Bush while ignoring what is going on in our government.

[DJ MacWoW]

And apparently your job is to trash George Bush while ignoring what is going on in our government.

You have no idea what I've been doing. None.