Something to Consider

It's worth pausing to think about what the numbers on the dismissals in the Justice Department actually tell us. The Economist has some considerations. So what were the figures from the Clinton era?

More Dog-Whistle Theories

The New York Times is obnoxious. It says:

In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. By resisting pressure to crack down on “fraud,” the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system.

Oh really? And how did the Times, of all publications, manage to crack this "code"? Did they get a copy of our handbook? Did someone slip it to them?

In any event, we all know that this must be true, since the idea that Democrats would ever engage in voter fraud is absurd. Right?

Here's a newsflash, NYT: in "partisan Republican circles," the pursuit of voter fraud is code for... the pursuit of voter fraud.

"Meddling ... for Political Reasons"?

Perish the thought. Key quote:

As it does peerlessly, the Times has crafted the template for mainstream-media coverage of this saga. Loyalty to Bush and Gonzales — could anything be more sinister? That’s why, we’re told in yet another breathless dispatch, “Congressional Democrats … are investigating whether the White House was meddling in Justice Department affairs for political reasons.”

The storyline makes great theater. It is also absurd. You might as well ask whether Congress is proposing legislation for political reasons, or whether loyalty to the party leaders might have had a teensy-weensy bit to do with what bills got voted.

Indeed. Democratic indignation here is a bit hard to swallow. And furthermore:

So let’s be clear. The prosecution of individual cases proceeds in accordance with constitutional and statutory protections for the individual. It is inherently a legal, not a political, process. Politics ought never intrude on it. But the same is decidedly not true of prosecution in the macro sense of setting enforcement priorities.

However, we're learning now that Karl Rove has played a big hand in deciding on these and other firings, to a level beyond what I would expect is normal. This strikes me as inappropriate, although again, there's no real evidence that anyone was fired for their political beliefs and not because of a reluctance to pursue Administration priorities. We're also learning that, in sworn testimony, the Attorney General gave inaccurate information to Congress about the White House's involvement in these firings. Gonzales' chief of staff resigned because of this, and that may be all that's needed. But maybe not.

US Attorneys Serve "at the Will of the President"

Worth remembering:

United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).

More on the Fired Prosecutors

The New York Times has an interesting article on the dustup over the DoJ's firing of seven prosecutors for allegedly political reasons. The documents show that Gonzales's chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, assessed the prosecutors by recommending retention of those who, in part, "exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general," and recommending removal of those who, conversely, "chafed against administration initiatives." Five of the seven fired were in the latter category, which included lack of effectiveness and managerial ability as well.

I assume that the upper echelons of the Department of Justice enjoy some authority to set policy - including prosecution policy - for all of the US prosecutors. Inasmuch as that means"chafing" against administration initiatives is unwarranted, I don't see much of a problem there. I'd be interested to know what counted as "chafing," which initiatives were considered, and how far the authority of the higher-ups extends in this regard.

As for exhibiting "loyalty to the president and attorney general," well, it's unseemly to use that word in such personal terms. But if it means good faith pursuit of the legitimately established policies governing the prosecutors' offices, I don't think that's much of a scandal. Seeing more documents would show what the general tenor of the firings really was.

I do wonder why two of those who were fired fell into the "retain" category. If they "produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general," as that category requires, what justification was there for their dismissals? Were those firings politically motivated? I'd be curious to see what happened there.

It's not encouraging that Karl Rove appears to have been involved in the process. In an email after the firings, Sampson apparently said that the appointment of the new prosecutor in Arkansas, J. Timothy Griffin, was "important to Harriet, Karl, etc." Even allowing for the AG's authority to set prosecution policy, a political advisor should not participate in what should be a professional review of job performance.

It also looks like Sampson advocated a stonewalling of Arkansas' two Democratic senators. He said in the same email:

I think we should gum this to death[....] Ask the senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say ‘no never’ (and the longer we can forestall that the better), then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All this should be done in ‘good faith’ of course.

Umm.... That doesn't sound very "good faith" to me.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has an article saying that this evidence of involvement by the White House undercuts Gonzales' statements to Congress that there was no such involvement. Gonzales responded by saying that he was unaware of those emails.

I think the calls for Gonzales' resignation are premature. Nevertheless, this matter may give the Republicans their first real chance to rue the day the Dems got subpoena power.