Like the Energizer Bunny, The US Attorneys Scandal Just Keeps On Going
Weekend revelations about the mass firing of eight US attorneys implicate the White House and provide fuel for critics who believe the December pink-slip-fest reflects the worst of partisan politics. All those fired were Republicans. Just not Republican enough, it seems.
On Sunday, White House spokesperson Dana Perino told McClatchy Newspapers that White House and Republican Party adviser Karl Rove "relayed complaints [about US Attorney David Iglesias (NM)] from Republican officials and others to the Justice Department... and [he] may have mentioned the grumblings ... to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales."
On Saturday, McClatchy reported that New Mexico Republican Party chair Allen Weh complained about Iglesias to Rove in 2005.
This not the first link between Rove and the Department of Justice mass firing of eight US attorneys in December 2006.
The issue first came to light in January press about events in Arkansas, where the new US Attorney appointee seemed unqualified: his experience was almost exclusively as a political operative, much of that for Rove.
Back Story
US Attorneys are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They normally serve terms concurrent with the President. In the past, in the case of a vacancy, the district court recommends and the Senate confirms within 120 days.
However, after the Arkansas case shined a light on dismissals, researchers discovered that The Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005, PL 109-177, changed the process for filling vacancies.
Under the revised Patriot Act language, in the case of a vacancy the Attorney General is empowered to appoint an "interim" US Attorney for an indefinite period -- no Senate confirmation required. The language was inserted in the bill during conference committee at the request of the White House; it was not part of any original Patriot Act reauthorization proposal. Read about how this happened.
- AttorneyGate Timeline
- Patriot Act Changed The Rules on US Attorney Appointments
- How Congress Changed The Rules On US Attorney Appointments
- Text of SB 214 - Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007 (Reported in Senate)
- The Strong-Arm Ideology & Philosophy of Alberto Gonzales, US Liberals
- Dump Alberto Gonzales, and Let the Healing Commence, US Liberals
- Why Gonzales Must Resign, Civil Liberties
Comments
Since these are appointed positions, why are these changes extraordinary? Clinton ordered Reno to fire ALL the federal prosecutors, and she did. If a provision in a Patriot Act allows for subseqent appointments to be made on a non-confirmation basis, the legislators can certainly “fix” that. Is this really an issue that ranks higher than the many others we need to face as a nation? Scandal?? A tempest in a teapot is more like it!!
I strongly disagree with Rick’s comment at 11:10 a.m. First of all, President Clinton did what was customary when a new President takes over, especially when the prior President was from a different party. The circumstances in this situation are completely different. As has been noted in this article, these firings were made possible by the White House’s urging of Congressional language to allow for this. The Justice Department made public statements that attacked the competence of these attorneys when in fact their competence was not the issue. Their unwillingness to be political partisans was the issue. I applaud the attorneys for trying to avoid appearing political at the obvious risk of losing their jobs. The Justice Department, Karl Rove, the Vice President, and the President should be ashamed and need to be held accountable.
Hi, Rick:
Did you read the article? I ask because the issue isn’t the firing, IMO … the issue is being able to appoint without Senate oversight.
Thanks, Jason.
I don’t think DOJ expected these attorneys to speak out. I’d be interested in reading any background on how that came about. They had to know that speaking out would = a tempest.
I think we have more important things to worry about in this country than whether eight attorneys have a job.
Hi, Patrick:
That’s an interesting “take” on what’s happening here. Obviously, it’s not _my_ take … I’m far more interested in power consolidation and pre-emption of congressional oversight.
The law currently seems to indicate: Gonzales may appoint US Attorneys to vacancies, except people the Senate refused to give advice and consent 546(b) (in writing or by inaction?). The only law change I can find is that when the Senate refused an appointee the District Court got to appoint a US Attorney indefinitely or until the Senate approved/disapproved of him, and now the US Attorney does that. Far from being “bullied” the Senate appears to have had NO CHANGE in power on this. This isn’t the impression the Ds seem to be conveying to America, though, is it?
28 USC Chapter 35 – United States Attorneys (sections 541 and 546) http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/28C35.txt
Patriot Act Reauthorization March 2006, section 502 alters the above by strikes out 546(c)and(d) (District Court appointee serves indefinitely or until Senate approval) by granting that appointing to the US Attorney on page 246. the http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislation/l/pl_109-177_march2006.pdf
Comment from Mike - approved but not showing:
The law currently seems to indicate: Gonzales may appoint US Attorneys to vacancies, except people the Senate refused to give advice and consent 546(b) (in writing or by inaction?). The only law change I can find is that when the Senate refused an appointee the District Court got to appoint a US Attorney indefinitely or until the Senate approved/disapproved of him, and now the US Attorney does that. Far from being “bullied” the Senate appears to have had NO CHANGE in power on this. This isn’t the impression the Ds seem to be conveying to America, though, is it?
28 USC Chapter 35 – United States Attorneys (sections 541 and 546) http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/28C35.txt
Patriot Act Reauthorization March 2006, section 502 alters the above by strikes out 546(c)and(d) (District Court appointee serves indefinitely or until Senate approval) by granting that appointing to the US Attorney on page 246. the http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislation/l/pl_109-177_march2006.pdf
Hi, Mike - apologies for the lag and the system not showing your post after its approval.
1. I don’t think your characterization of the law is accurate.
Under the current provision, Gonzales may appoint anyone as USA without needing Congressional approval. IOW, Congress has no say in the matter.
Gonzales has said that he does not plan to use this authority and that he would submit any name to the Senate for approval.
2) The Patriot Act clearly changed the Senate’s responsibility — it removed advise and consent on replacements.
It also changed the relationship between the White House and the District Judges.