Gonzales Agrees To Change Way Of Hiring U.S. Attorneys
What a difference a Congressional hearing packed with outraged Democrats and Republicans can make.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, under fire for by what all accounts seems like the political firings and replacements of U.S. attorneys throughout the country, has now effectively reversed himself, the Washington Post reports:
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales agreed yesterday to change the way U.S. attorneys can be replaced, a reversal in administration policy that came after he was browbeaten by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee still angry over the controversial firings of eight federal prosecutors.Gonzales told Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and other senior members of the committee that the administration will no longer oppose legislation limiting the attorney general’s power to appoint interim prosecutors. Gonzales also agreed to allow the committee to interview five top-level Justice Department officials as part of an ongoing Democratic-led probe into the firings, senators said after a tense, hour-long meeting in Leahy’s office suite.
The reason: once again Gonzales has been smack in the middle of a controversy involving allegations that the executive branch is running roughshod over the conventional wisdom — and, critics say, peppering the stew with heavy dashes of partisanship. MORE:
The concessions represent a turnaround by the White House and the Justice Department, which have argued for three months that Gonzales must have unfettered power to appoint interim federal prosecutors and have resisted disclosing details about the firings.But the administration has been battered by mounting allegations that several of the fired prosecutors — six of whom testified before Congress on Tuesday — had been the subject of intimidation, including improper telephone calls from GOP lawmakers or their aides, and alleged threats of retaliation by Justice Department officials. One prosecutor told lawmakers this week that he felt “leaned on” by a senior Republican senator, and Senate Democrats have readied subpoenas for five key members of Gonzales’ inner circle of advisers.
And, the Post notes, Gonzale’s sudden seeing the light came not too long after a key Senator suggested that the time might be drawing near when the AG should start sending out his resume:
The capitulation came just hours after several leading Senate Republicans sharply criticized Gonzales for his handling of the issue. Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, seemed to suggest that Gonzales’s tenure may not last through the remainder of President Bush’s term.
“One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later,” Specter said sharply. In an interview with Reuters after the meeting with Gonzales, Specter said his comments did not imply he thought the attorney general should be replaced.
And “pre-owned” cars are not “used cars.”
Why does this controversy matter?
Because it’s part and parcel of a pattern with the Bush administration — not just in policies, but in how they are received. Once again a large number of Democrats were joined by some key Republicans who clearly were upset by the firings. But this is 2007 where the Democrats hold more power in Congress and where some GOPers aren’t willing to put their careers on the line — or jettison past principles — for the White House. There is a split in GOP ranks between more independent-minded Republicans and those who can be counted on to back the White House’s action and echo its arguments.
But in the end — as in the several other controversial cases — the Democrats and Republicans who oppose the administration sparked at least a partial shift in executive branch policy.
Joe Conason writes in Slate:
Under any circumstances, the Bush administration’s sudden, explicitly political dismissal and replacement of United States attorneys in judicial districts across the country would be very troubling — both as a violation of American law enforcement traditions and as a triumph of patronage over competence.But as the story behind these strange decisions unfolds, a familiar theme is emerging. Again, the White House and the Justice Department have been exposed in a secretive attempt to expand executive power for partisan purposes. And again, their scheming is tainted with a nasty whiff of authoritarianism.
There is much more at stake here than a handful of federal jobs.
Leading senators of both parties are disturbed by these incidents because U.S. attorneys — the powerful officials appointed by the president to prosecute federal crimes and defend federal interests in each of the nation’s judicial districts — are supposed to be as nonpartisan as possible. Democrats mostly appoint Democrats and Republicans mostly appoint Republicans, but the U.S. attorneys are usually chosen with the advice and consent of the senators from their home states, and then confirmed by the full Senate, with a decent respect for skill and experience as well as political connections.
Conason details the history of the latest controversy involving Gonzales, executive power, and mega-politicization of the executive branch. And then he adds this:
Any such self-serving statements emanating from Alberto Gonzales should always be greeted with appropriate skepticism. So should the claim that he sought to seize control of interim U.S. attorney appointments because of his concern over the “separation of powers” issues supposedly inherent in judges’ appointing prosecutors. As the McClatchy Newspapers reported on Jan. 26, Gonzales has named at least nine “conservative loyalists from the Bush administration’s inner circle” to positions vacated by professional prosecutors.On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to restore the old nonpartisan system for replacing U.S. attorneys and to require Senate confirmation of all new appointees. The full Senate and the House of Representatives should do likewise, despite Republican opposition, but that is not enough. The Senate Democrats should continue to probe the attorney general’s little coup d’état and all of the resulting appointments. That is the best way to discourage future usurpations — and to frustrate whatever skulduggery was afoot this time.
Yes, there are still coalitions in American politics — but, in this case, the coalition has been between Democrats and the more independent-minded Senate Republicans.
A key lesson in this: divided government can be effective in extracting accountability and shaping policy.
27 Responses to “Gonzales Agrees To Change Way Of Hiring U.S. Attorneys”
This is a bizarre story, given that US attorneys positions ARE political patronage positions. The main difference is that Bush is doing this late in his term, and is bypassing Senate confirmation to avoid a fight.
Bill Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys in one day upon assuming office in 1993, and replaced them all with loyal Democrats (the only one not fired was a US attorney who was kept on at the behest of Bill Bradley).
You can Google for this, it is well known. This process is totally political.
Joe Conanson’s view is thus bizarre: “as a violation of American law enforcement traditions and as a triumph of patronage over competence.Democrats mostly appoint Democrats and Republicans mostly appoint Republicans, but the U.S. attorneys are usually chosen with the advice and consent of the senators from their home states, and then confirmed by the full Senate, with a decent respect for skill and experience as well as political connections….That is the best way to discourage future usurpations — and to frustrate whatever skulduggery was afoot this time..”
Again, Bill Clinton fired all the US attorneys but one, PURELY on the basis of politics. This included the US attorney in Arkansas investigating Hubble and Whitewater.
Was this Clinton skulduggery? No, it is standard political patronage.
What is Conason talking about? Does he even know this?
So, when President Hillary clears house and fires ALL of the BUSH appointees in 2009…will there be screams of outrage over this?
I am willing to bet no one here will be commenting, neither will there be any reference in the MSM to “skulduggery”.
I should add that I am all in favor of this new legislation.
After all, if a Republican is elected in ’08 things will stay the same…but if Hillary or Obama is elected in ’08, it will become harder for them to remove all of the Republican US attorneys appointed under Bush.
Of course, I am sure they will still fire ALL of Bush’s US attorneys…and claim they are “restoring balance to our democracy” or some such boilerplate…and be cheered for this.
Liberal blogs will claim that ALL the Bush appointees were incompetent, and so had to be fired.
But the presence of this legislation will make Democrats squirm a little when competent Bush attorneys are tossed…and the new cohort of Democrats come up for confirmation.
Marlow, it’s only bizarre if you’re so stupid that you don’t understand what the story is about. While, it’s typical to hire AGs at the start of a term and then keep them unless there’s cause for dismissal. No-cause firings are a deviation from the norm.
It’s not the no-cause firings in and of themselves, though; the important bit is that Bush fired the AGs because they failed to bend law enforcement to politics.
Citing Clinton’s dismissals is, perhaps, the best argument in favor of a new approach. The judiciary, after all, should not be an arm of the party in power. Judges should be busy applying the law, not politicing for their party.
I can see, though, a good reason for political appointments for other positions. The administration, after all, does not want to be battling its own department heads over policy issues. There, the danger comes only when party loyalty is all it takes, and regard for competence is ignored
In the end, no rules or regulations will be perfect. Too much depends on how wisely and carefully the rules are applied. There is nothing that can protect from overzealous administrations or ideology mad judges except the public’s vigilant attention.
JPE: Thank you for your compliment about my intelligence.
Please read my post…about Clinton firing all 93 attorneys in 1993. He fired all of them in one single day…totally without cause other than their political affliliation.
Your comment: “No-cause firings are a deviation from the norm. ” is clearly rubbish.
What, Clinton realized in 1993 that every US attorney was incompetent and they all had to be fired immediately…and replaced with competent Democrats?
You clearly know nothing of this issue. Please Google for “Clinton+US attorneys+1993″
Again, these are political patronage positions.
Bush used the new legislation to get around confirmation by the senate…similar to what he did with Bolton under a recess appointment…and some senators are upset about this.
But to claim…as does Conason…that there was a non-partisan system that Bush violated is rubbish.
“the important bit is that Bush fired the AGs because they failed to bend law enforcement to politics”
So are you outraged at Clinton firing the US attorney in 1993 who was investigating Hubble and Whitewater as a clear conflict of interest?
No, somehow I think not.
From the rumors and hearsay blog world, I gleaned an interesting question: what are the unfired judges up to?
How far do they go to stay in the administration’s good graces in order to keep their jobs? Would they target the opposition party’s pols for investigations? Paul Klugman says ‘yes’, but
I wonder what the proof is.
More to the point, how far does the judiciary go to punish the opposing party, no matter which party is in power?
Does anyone know?
Marlow- Its not that unusual for a president to clean house at the beginning of his term- just like they do with the Cabinet and other federal appointments. We had had 12 years of Republican rule, so naturally Clinton would want law enforcement to be of his own party. Bush fired attorneys that he himself appointed, that were indies or Republicans, in the middle of his term, and gave them no reason for the firings. Look at what a Republican former US atty from the Reagan era has to say:
The former San Diego U.S. Attorney, Peter Nunez, who served under Reagan said: “[This] is like nothing I’ve ever seen before in 35-plus years.” He went on to say that while the President has the authority to fire a U.S. Attorney for any reason, it is “extremely rare” unless there is an allegation of misconduct.
Let’s cut to the chase, lads.
Gonzalez has been an unmitigated disaster who has managed the feat of making John Ashcroft and even Janet Reno look good.
Remember that the AG is the U.S.’s leading LAW ENFORCEMENT officer. Gonzalez, on the other hand, has worked assiduously to undermine and ignore laws while making unsustainable arguments as to why his boss is above them.
It is time to throw this embarrassment from the train.
Uh, make that lads and lassie . . . (Sorry again, kritter).
Its ok Shaun. I agree- Gonzales has acted like a petty partisan. He was the president’s personal attorney before taking the AG post, and is still acting like it, bending the law to fit whatever Bush’s agenda might be.
I have to question the judgement of a man who would remove a US attorney who is in the middle of a politically sensitive public corruption case, or replace a highly-regarded US attorney with a less-qualified patronage appointment. It smells to high heaven.
Kritter said: “I have to question the judgement of a man who would remove a US attorney who is in the middle of a politically sensitive public corruption case”
Kritter, I would point out – in the case of Clinton in 1993 – that he fired the US attorney in Arkansas who was at the time heading up an investigation into Web Hubbel.
And who was the point man at Justice, coordinating these firings with the White House? The third highest ranking Justice Dept. official, associate attorney general…Webster Hubbell.
Two years later Hubbell was convicted on multiple felonies.
I’m not saying that this is not totally partisan on Gonzales part. He is part of Bush’s inner circle…much as Hubble was with Clinton.
I am saying that this obvious partisanship and self-interest in this case is not unique to the Bush administration.
The tone of media coverage of this makes it seem as if this is another case where Bush is destroying the Republic in an unprecedented way…when, in fact, he is acting in a manner very similar to previous administrations.
Marlowe- I’m not excusing Clinton for firing the prosecutor in the state case, but I don’t know all the details. I also think he should not have pardoned Marc Rich (a move he later regretted), but that doesn’t make what Gonzales has done any easier to digest.
I will say that Clinton never fired a prosecutor as president that was involved in a corruption probe of Congress- so I think you are using a double standard. Most source I have read– like the one I quoted you- are indeed saying this is highly unusual.
Do you have a source that says this is business as usual??
Marlowe- Sorry-I just realized that Clinton must have fired the US atty in Arkansas while he was president as one of the 93. But didn’t Hubbell get indicted and go to jail anyway for tax evasion?
Now that Gonzalez has been caught out, that MAY put a new light on U.S. Attorney Chris Christie’s dogged pursuit of Robert Menendez in New Jersey in the heat of the U.S. Senate campaign last fall.
Here’s a link:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/to_the_victors_.html
Hi Kritter…Yes, Hubble got indicted and sent to jail anyway. Clearly, Clinton did not get his money’s worth from his appointees
Also, I believe you are probably right, that Clinton never fired anyone involved in probes of Congress.
It is also true that firings mid-term are unusual, as is this avoidance of confirmation (due to the changes in the Patriot Act).
My point is that Bush is getting hammered on this, mainly because he didn’t sweep out all the Clinton-era appointees upon first taking office, while Clinton got a free pass in 1993 (Clinton’s firing ALL the U.S. attorneys was itself unprecedented, I gather from what I have read…many are replaced, but not a wholesale purge).
There seems to be a clear double-standard with regard to Bush here. I note your mention of Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich. In the recent media flurry over Libby, I have read people calling for Congressional investigation into Bush’s pardoning authority and whether any deal was struck with Libby.
Personally: I do not feel that U.S. attorney should be political appointments. They should be non-partisan, and appointed on merit, and confirmed by the Senate.
However, I think the record suggests that they are political positions, and that Bush is being hammered under a double-standard. With luck, reforms may change this.
As I indicated in a comment above, reforms would only help the GOP as they would make it very sticky for a Democratic president to kick out current U.S. attorneys who have demonstrated competency just for being Republicans.
Count on the media looking the other way when President Hillary repeats her husband’s “Inaugural Massacre” of the U.S. Attorneys in 09.
Marlowecan:
I respect your need to keep score. Well, I do too and Bush is beating Clinton by a wide margin when it comes to the big game — replacing policy with politics, misusing his office, putting himself above the law and the hat trick of starting the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.
Whuddya think? If this was football, I’d say Bush 72, Clinton 6.
[...] Some good blog posts can be found at by Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice and also at The Constant American. [...]
Komrad Marlow – What you fail to mention is that this gang of thugs recently changed the rules. All 93 of Clinton’s USAtt had to be approved by Congress. The Bush appointees will not be vetted(now changed). Because of Congressional hearings, this ‘political end around’ won’t happen and the couple of lines added to the PatAct will be cancelled. LOL – Harriet Meirs or Barney the dog could have been appointed as US attorneies without anyone challenging this patronage.
Gotta go, Domenici calling gonna do some hackery……
Marlowe- Rich’s pardon was announced hours before Bush was inaugurated. It generated a huge outcry and I believe an investigation into whether contributions from Rich’s ex-wife influenced Clinton’s decision. But its not as though Congress could have challenged his ability to pardon criminals as he was leaving office?? BTW- one of the prosecutors in the Rich case was none other than Fitzgerald, and one of his atty’s—-I. Lewis Libby. Small world.
I thought Bush did fire a lot of the Clinton appointees- none of the fired US attorneys are Democrats, and I think only Lam is an Independent.
I actually think pardons should follow justice dept guidelines by law. Bush promised to stick by those guidlines (because of the Rich uproar) which would mean ol’ Scooter would have to admit guilt, serve 5 years of his sentence, and express regret for his actions. Hmmm, will W stick to his word on this one???
BTW, Marlowe- If Clinton’s plan in replacing the attorneys was to stymie the Hubbel investigation, how come he ended up in jail anyway? Didn’t pick cronies of his administration?
The firings are designed to intimidate the remaining U.s. attorneys. Their job is an early step towards elected positions. Being a “fired U.S. attorney” is a death sentence for any ambitious official. This is a big club in the hands of the A.G. Are there some current cases that the admin. needs decided in it’s favor?
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many prosecutors were fired when each George Bush initially took office? We have obviously heard much about the Clinton era.
bg
I’m currently working on a list of all U.S. Attorneys and when they were nominated by using the White House nomination archives. I can so far say that Bush has replaced at least 85 of them with his own picks with the majority occurring in 2001. I can also say that far more than the 8 being looked at have been replaced a second time but many of these people only resigned because they were promoted to judges or higher positions.
Does anyone know how many of the 93 attorneys fired in 1993 by Janet Reno were rehired to the same position within a year or so? Firings like resignations are one thing but rehires of the same people would be interesting.
Not sure what you’re asking Robert. Are you wondering if any of the USAs who resigned when Clinton came in were then renominated by Clinton? If that’s the question then the answer is most certainly no. If they were going be kept on, they would have never resigned in the first place.