We learned two weeks ago that the Justice Department’s decision to inexplicably fire a series of U.S. Attorneys may have been influenced by administration higher-ups. Pressure “did not come from the people who would know about the U.S. Attorneys’ job performance (their supervisors at the Justice Department), but rather from power players in the White House or Republican Party.”
In an interesting revelation that adds a new wrinkle to this burgeoning controversy, the NYT reports today that the White House counsel’s office was directly involved with one of the purges.
A United States attorney in Arkansas who was dismissed from his job last year by the Justice Department was ousted after Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, intervened on behalf of the man who replaced him, according to Congressional aides briefed on the matter.
Ms. Miers, the aides said, phoned an aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales suggesting the appointment of J. Timothy Griffin, a former military and civilian prosecutor who was a political director for the Republican National Committee and a deputy to Karl Rove, the White House political adviser.
Later, the incumbent United States attorney, H. E. Cummins III, was removed without explanation and replaced on an interim basis by Mr. Griffin.
And why, exactly, would the White House counsel urge the Justice Department to fire a capable, well-performing U.S. Attorney, in order to replace him with a Karl Rove acolyte? At this point, we don’t know.
The Senate Judiciary Committee received a private briefing from the deputy attorney general yesterday, at which point the Miers connection was discussed, but Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the information “did little to alleviate our concerns that politics was involved and, in fact, raised those concerns.”
In an added twist, Griffin, the Rove ally and former political director for the Republican National Committee, has decided he doesn’t want the job anymore. Well, sort of.
“I have made the decision not to let my name go forward to the Senate,” Griffin said last night. He blamed “the partisanship that has been exhibited by Sen. [Mark] Pryor [D-Ark.] and other senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the recent hearing” for his decision to bow out.
Let me get this straight: the White House orchestrates a scheme whereby a U.S. Attorney, for no apparent reason, is fired in order to be replaced by a less-qualified RNC political director, and the problem here is that Senate Dems are displaying “partisanship.” Gotta love it.
It turns out, however, that Griffin will be the U.S. Attorney until the White House names a replacement, which could take a while. As Paul Kiel noted, Griffin could, in theory, hold the job for two years, waiting for a replacement that is never named.
And in related news, Senate Dems believed it was time to respond to the controversy by changing the Patriot Act provision that allows the Justice Department to circumvent Congress when appointing U.S. Attorneys. Yesterday, predictably, Senate Republicans blocked the bill.
A month ago, as the controversy was just beginning to unfold, Paul Krugman wrote, “There’s something happening here, and what it is seems completely clear: the Bush administration is trying to protect itself by purging independent-minded prosecutors…. [T]he purge of U.S. attorneys looks like a pre-emptive strike against the gathering forces of justice.” That appears increasingly true with each passing revelation.
One more thought: the right seems unusually quiet about this story. Granted, it hasn’t actually become front page news yet, and broadcast media has given it very little attention. But as a rule, when a new Bush-related controversy arises, his backers offer at least tacit support, make up reasons to dismiss the questions, and lash out at those who dare ask for an explanation. So far, most of Bush’s allies have been almost entirely silent on this. Hmm.