1. Home
  2. News & Issues
  3. US Politics

US Politics Blog

From About.com

US Attorneys Speak Out

Tuesday April 3, 2007
With Congress on Easter recess, and Attorney General Gonzales scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 17 April, it's a good time to review the remarks of some of the eight US Attorneys fired last year who have begun speaking out publicly.

For example, Bud Cummins (Arkansas) writes in Salon that the repercussions from these firings extend beyond this single-moment-in-time:

The president had an absolute right to fire us. We served at his pleasure, and that meant we could be dismissed for any reason or for no reason. And we all accepted that fact without complaint. When challenged by Congress, the leaders of the Department of Justice could have refused to explain. Or, they could have explained the truth. But apparently the truth behind some or all of the firings was embarrassing. So, instead, they said it was because of "performance." We didn't accept that, because it wasn't the truth...

To this day, we don't really know why we were singled out to be fired. I am not sure Department of Justice managers even know at this point. But you can read the newspapers and watch the congressional hearings and easily conclude that some of the motivations were likely ... unattractive. This was hardly this administration's brightest shining moment...

Put simply, the Department of Justice lives on credibility. When a federal prosecutor sends FBI agents to your brother's house with an arrest warrant, demonstrating an intention to take away years of his liberty, separate him from his family, and take away his property, you and the public at large must have absolute confidence that the sole reason for those actions is that there was substantial evidence to suggest that your brother intentionally committed a federal crime.

And now, he writes, that credibility has been shattered.

Almost two weeks earlier, David Iglesias (New Mexico) told his story in the New York Times (subscription required):

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political...

When some of my fired colleagues -- Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle -- and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department's released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being ''happy as a clam'' that I was fired.)

Seattle Attorney John McKay also seemed targeted because he failed to launch a political prosecution. From the Seattle Times:

[During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing], Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked [McKay] if he had ever been contacted by any members of Congress about ongoing investigations.

McKay responded that "some weeks" after the 2004 election, after a third recount had determined that Democrat Christine Gregoire had narrowly defeated Republican Dino Rossi in the governor's race, Ed Cassidy, Rep. Hastings' then-chief of staff, called McKay...

"When Mr. Cassidy called me on future action, I stopped him and I told him I was sure that he wasn't asking me on behalf" of Hastings, McKay told the Senate committee, "because we both knew that would be improper. [Cassidy] agreed it would be improper, and he ended the conversation in a most expeditious manner."...

Congressional rules prohibit House and Senate members from discussing ongoing investigations with federal prosecutors.

Will this Administration admit that it consciously decided to politicize the office of US Attorney? Will Gonzales admit to the Senate that he lied to them earlier about the degree of his involvement -- or will he insist that his former aid, Kyle Sampson, was the person lying? After all, it's an e-mail trail from Sampson that shows that Karl Rove and Harriet Meyers wanted to put Tim Griffin in the seat in Arkansas ... before the 2008 election cycle.

Stay tuned.

Explore US Politics

About.com Special Features

What is a Recession?

Sure, we're all talking about it, but what, exactly, defines a recession? More >

Weird Breaking News

A daily look at some of the oddest (and dumbest) crimes around. More >

  1. Home
  2. News & Issues
  3. US Politics

©2009 About.com, a part of The New York Times Company.

All rights reserved.