|Page 5 of 5 <|
Is Gonzales a Diversion?
What's unprecedented about this case is the large-scale purge of U.S. attorneys, in the middle of a presidential term, potentially because they were perceived to be insufficiently partisan.
I've been dumbfounded by all the e-mail I've been getting from people trying to forgive Bush's move by likening it to the generic, whole scale acts of previous presidents. Do people really not understand the distinction?
Well, apparently Bush himself doesn't get the distinction. Or he does, but he's just trying to confuse people.
Early this afternoon in Mexico, Bush repeated this entirely unsupported and disingenuous argument, saying that "there is a lot of confusion about what really has been a customary practice. . . . Past administrations have removed U.S. attorneys, it's their right to do so."
McClatchy Newspapers explains: "Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected."
This is not a debatable fact -- even within the Bush administration. As Gonzales's former chief of staff Sampson explained to White House lawyers in an Jan. 9, 2006, e=mail: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose four-year terms had expired, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.'"
Politics and Policy
Bob Egelko writes in the San Francisco Chronicle: "The Justice Department's firing of federal prosecutors who ran afoul of the Bush administration or Republican operatives is fueling the belief among legal analysts -- including some conservatives -- that the White House is erasing the traditional line between politics and policy in law enforcement.
"'The Justice Department is different from other agencies because it's devoted to the rule of law,' Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official under Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, said Tuesday. He said the Bush administration is tampering with that principle in a way that is 'worrisome, because the rule of law is the cement that holds the country together.'"
About Those E-Mails
David Johnston and Eric Lipton write in the New York Times: "The documents provided by the Justice Department add some new details to the chronicle of the fired prosecutors but leave many critical questions unanswered, including the nature of discussions inside the White House and the level of knowledge and involvement by the president and his closest political aide, Karl Rove.
"The White House said Monday that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove had raised concerns about lax voter fraud prosecutions with the Justice Department. And several of the fired attorneys told Congress last week that some lawmakers had questioned them about corruption investigations, inquiries the prosecutors considered inappropriate. The documents do not specifically mention either topic. . . .
"Mr. Sampson's e-mail message, sent to the White House and Justice Department colleagues, suggested he was hoping to stall efforts by the state's two Democratic senators to pick their own candidates as permanent successors for Mr. Cummins.
"'I think we should gum this to death,' Mr. Sampson wrote. '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.'"
Evan Perez and Gary Fields write in the Wall Street Journal: "Emails between White House aides and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's chief of staff show an orchestrated effort to fire several U.S. attorneys, counter to Mr. Gonzales's previous assertions that the firings weren't instigated by the White House."
Margaret Talev writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "In a remarkably candid series of emails, Justice Department officials said its new powers to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation offered the administration the chance to efficiently 'get our preferred persons appointed' to the top prosecutors jobs."
The Boston Globe has some excerpts. Here, for instance, is a Dec. 4, 2006, e-mail from Deputy White House Counsel William K. Kelley to Sampson, copied to White House Counsel Harriet Miers: "We're a go for the US atty plan. WH leg[islative affairs], political and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."
One curious aspect of yesterday's document dump is that it shows e-mails from J. Scott Jennings, who is Karl Rove's deputy at the White House, coming from an e-mail address at gwb43.com -- a domain owned by the Republican National Committee.
It makes some sense that White House officials might have and use such accounts when they conduct party business, rather than White House business. But the distinction between party and government business seems to have been forgotten here -- which I guess is exactly the point.
Eggen and Kane write in The Post: "Democratic congressional aides said they will investigate whether using the private address for government business violated laws against using taxpayer resources for political work or signaled that White House officials considered the firing of U.S. attorneys to be primarily a political issue. Jennings did not return a call to his office seeking a comment.
"'As a matter of course, the RNC provides server space and equipment to certain White House personnel in order to assist them with their political efforts,' RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said."
I have asked a White House spokesman to answer the following questions:
1) Does White House policy allow White House staffers to use non-White House e-mail addresses for official White House business? Does it prohibit it? What is the policy?
2) Would these e-mails be treated any differently from official White House e-mails when it comes to archiving or subpoena purposes?
3) Does it create either impropriety or the appearance of impropriety that gwb43.com is a domain owned by the Republican National Committee?
4) Do other White House staffers regularly use non-White House e-mail accounts for White House business, and if so, why?
So far, no answers.
David G. Savage has a primer on U.S. attorneys in the Los Angeles Times.
Peter Baker and Michael Abramowitz write in The Washington Post: "The cascade of controversies that followed Bush to Latin America has left a president familiar with weathering crises in uncharted territory. For the first time since taking office, Bush confronts political furors on multiple fronts and an opposition Congress armed with the subpoena power to investigate them. . . .
"In the past, questions about its actions might have died down without the internal administration e-mails being made public. Now the White House is in the position of explaining why it has repeatedly changed its story. . . .
"'What you have got is a White House that has become an accountability-free zone that is now facing the reality of checks and balances from Congress,' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), a member of the House Democratic leadership. 'You had a White House that was used to a rubber-stamp Congress for so long that they could get away with anything. This is the kind of stuff that in the past Congress would have put their head in the sand about.'"
Baker and Abramowitz note that Bartlett, while acknowledging that the attorney issue was mishandled, "made no mention, however, of the shifting White House version of events. A week ago, the White House said it knew of no involvement of Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. But this week it disclosed that Rove was consulted two years ago on a suggestion to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys and that he warned against it. On Tuesday, Bartlett said that 'it wouldn't be surprising that Karl or other people were receiving these complaints' about prosecutors and passing them on."
The mainstream press is doing a miserable job of addressing the issue of "voter fraud" and whether criminal investigations into such alleged fraud are acts of responsible law-enforcement or rank partisanship, and what role all this played in the firings. I hope to revisit that tomorrow.
In the meantime, blogger Josh Marshall outlines a circumstantial case that the administration's beef with San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam had everything to do with her prosecution corruption investigation of former Republican Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham.
Washington Post: "It's become clear, most recently and pointedly with the release of e-mails between Mr. Sampson and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers, that Mr. Gonzales's assurances can't be trusted. . . .
"As we have said previously, the administration is entitled to prosecutors who reflect its policies and carry out its priorities. It is not entitled to treat federal prosecutors like political pawns -- nor is it entitled, any longer, to the benefit of the doubt about the propriety of its conduct.
"Mr. Gonzales can make self-serving declarations about his belief in 'accountability,' as he did at a news conference yesterday; he can proclaim his plans to 'ascertain what happened here . . . and take corrective actions.' Nothing in his record gives any reason for confidence that anything will change in a department under his leadership."
New York Times: "In firing the prosecutors and replacing them without Senate approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took advantage of a little-noticed provision that the administration and its Republican enablers in Congress had slipped into the 2006 expansion of the Patriot Act. The ostensible purpose was to allow the swift interim replacement of a United States attorney who was, for instance, killed by terrorism.
"But these firings had nothing to do with national security -- or officials' claims that the attorneys were fired for poor performance. This looks like a political purge, pure and simple, and President Bush and his White House are in the thick of it."
Los Angeles Times: "[D]on't blame [Gonzales] for the lack of principled leadership at the Justice Department. Blame his boss. President Bush appointed a man clearly unqualified for the job..
"The fact that the White House was complaining to the Justice Department that David Iglesias, the well-regarded federal prosecutor in New Mexico, was insufficiently committed to taking up voter fraud cases that Republicans cared deeply about is rather alarming. Alarming, but not surprising -- not so long as Gonzales is attorney general."
San Francisco Chronicle: "These latest incidents underscore the obvious: Gonzales must resign. The nation needs an attorney general who can restore confidence in the administration of justice."
Philadelphia Inquirer: "[T]he nation needs an attorney general whose first loyalty is to the rule of law, not to his old pals in the White House."
What About the 'Good Soldiers'?
New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman writes: "The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they would not go along with the Bush administration's politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.
" Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.
"How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: 'We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest.'"
I'm Live Online today at 1 p.m. ET.