Across the country, United States Attorneys are sometimes described as local attorneys general — each U.S. Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer within his or her local jurisdiction. There’s a pretty typical pattern for their tenures — a president nominates these federal prosecutors at the beginning of his term, and they serve until the next president.
If you’ve been reading TPM Muckraker this week, you know that the Bush White House’s approach to these local federal law enforcement officers has been anything but typical. Several U.S. attorneys — it’s unclear exactly how many — have been forced from their posts recently, to be replaced with another Bush appointee, despite some of them working on high-profile corruption cases.
Given the circumstances, Paul Krugman believes the Bush gang is “trying to protect itself by purging independent-minded prosecutors.” It’s not an unreasonable argument.
Since the day it took power this administration has shown nothing but contempt for the normal principles of good government. For six years ethical problems and conflicts of interest have been the rule, not the exception.
For a long time the administration nonetheless seemed untouchable, protected both by Republican control of Congress and by its ability to justify anything and everything as necessary for the war on terror. Now, however, the investigations are closing in on the Oval Office. The latest news is that J. Steven Griles, the former deputy secretary of the Interior Department and the poster child for the administration’s systematic policy of putting foxes in charge of henhouses, is finally facing possible indictment.
And the purge of U.S. attorneys looks like a pre-emptive strike against the gathering forces of justice.
Recent history certainly points in that direction. A U.S. attorney in Arkansas was replaced with opposition researcher for Karl Rove. The U.S. attorney for San Diego is being replaced after successfully prosecuting Duke Cunningham, despite the fact that the FBI believes her departure will likely undermine multiple ongoing investigations. There could be more, but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refuses to say exactly how many U.S. attorneys the administration has decided to replace.
Well, at least the Senate will get to ask questions during the confirmation process for these new federal prosecutors, right? Wrong.
Arlen Specter, the Republican senator who headed the Judiciary Committee until Congress changed hands, made sure of that last year. Previously, new U.S. attorneys needed Senate confirmation within 120 days or federal district courts would name replacements. But as part of a conference committee reconciling House and Senate versions of the revised Patriot Act, Mr. Specter slipped in a clause eliminating that rule.
As Paul Kiel of TPMmuckraker.com — which has done yeoman investigative reporting on this story — put it, this clause in effect allows the administration “to handpick replacements and keep them there in perpetuity without the ordeal of Senate confirmation.” How convenient. […]
The broader context is this: defeat in the midterm elections hasn’t led the Bush administration to scale back its imperial view of presidential power.
On the contrary, now that President Bush can no longer count on Congress to do his bidding, he’s more determined than ever to claim essentially unlimited authority — whether it’s the authority to send more troops into Iraq or the authority to stonewall investigations into his own administration’s conduct.
The next two years, in other words, are going to be a rolling constitutional crisis.
Now, Barbara O’Brien notes that U.S. attorneys do resign, on occasion, but “mid-term firings for no clear reason do look suspicious.” That’s right, especially when there are several changes, when the White House won’t say how many, and when at least one of the replacements is a Karl Rove aide.
Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, “I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.” Raise your hand if you’re willing to take his word for it.