Maybe it is “Legal�, But is it “Right�?
We all know by now that U.S. Attorneys serve at the “pleasure of the president�. In essence, that means the president can fire any of them “at his pleasure� or “at his will�.
As this former Bush administration official states:
Eight federal prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President Bush’s priorities, a standard that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former chief of staff says is legitimate.
Kyle Sampson, who quit earlier this month over the furor, disputed Democratic charges that the firings were a purge by intimidation and a warning to the remaining prosecutors to fall in line. Nor, he said, were the prosecutors dismissed to interfere with corruption investigations.
“To my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here,” Sampson said in remarks prepared for delivery Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee….
He acknowledged planning the firings as much as two years ago with the considered, collective judgment of a number of senior Justice Department officials.
However, he denied that the firings were improper, and he spoke dismissively of Democrats’ condemnation of what they call political pressure in the firings.
“The distinction between ‘political’ and ‘performance-related’ reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial,” he said. “A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective … is unsuccessful.”
But does the fact that something is legal make it “right�? Is that the standard we, as a country, have come to adhere to? As long as we won’t get tossed into jail, it must be OK to do?
Sadly, many of today’s leaders have fallen to this level.
We can do better. We must do better.
More News and Commentary for Moderates
“‘Moderate’ is not a 4-letter word.”
27 Responses to “Maybe it is “Legalâ€?, But is it “Rightâ€??”
The distinction between ‘political’ and ‘performance-related’ reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial,� he said. “A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective … is unsuccessful.�
That, in a nutshell, is the whole problem with the firings. As I have always understood the USA’s- they are supposed to follow the evidence no matter who it leads to, and be able to resist the prevailing political pressure. It is disillusioning to see that Sampson, Gonzales and the WH viewed them as just another political appointee, who carries out the whims of the administration or is supposed to be responsive to pressure from local politicians, in order to retain their jobs. Somehow, the involvement of Karl Rove, in and of itself, leads me to doubt that public corruption cases had nothing to do with any of the firings.
One thing is for sure, Gonzo’s goose is cooked. He has come out the worst of anyone in Sampson’s testimony. How sad that this man, who represents our country’s justice system has no qualms about lying to Congress , the press and the public in the course of doing his job. He should consider taking the fifth if put under oath!
If Hillary is elected next year on a promise of aggressively prosecuting hate crimes and corporate corruption, and after appointing US attorneys she finds that a few of them aren’t following her directive aggressively enough, would you support removing these appointees in favor of new ones that would carry out the will of the majority who elected her?
Bush promised to prosecute immigration violations and voter fraud. The removed USAs didn’t measure up to these priorities.
Not only was it legal, it was the right thing to do.
Then why are they all lying about it? Also some of the emails show that they planned to use immigration enforcement as a cover, since several of the USA’s lived in border states.
If this is right, I’ll have to reread all of US history in a new light. I’ve been thinking it was about the rule of law, not the rule of party.
I’ve been disturbed about how politicized the departments of governement have become; according to this, it’s only natural.
I was surprised that civilian staffers in Iraq (per Bremer) were asked how they voted and what their views were on abortion; according to this, that was only right.
Everyone is marvelling at how partisan the nation is; according to this, it’s a basic tenet of our system.
If this is how our government works, then I’m left feeling totally hopeless.
No wonder we get Brownies to head FEMA.
It’s all part of the system!
It’s a winner-take-all principle, and tough luck to the rest of the nation. It’s a principle to guarantee divisiveness in pertuity.
jwest–
Talking Points Memo has a copy of The letter of commendation from the US Customs and Border Patrol to Carol Lam. Carol Lam is one of fired US Attorneys.
Her commendation is filled with facts and figures. Here’s quote from near the bottom of page 2:
As for failure to prosecute cases of voter fraud, if there is no voter fraud, there’s nothing to prosecute. I couldn’t find any evidence of such a thing–but I don’t live there. If you have better information, please provide some links.
As for what a theoretical Hillary Clinton administration “would” do, I’d hope her Attorney General’s testimony would be truthful.
PS I hope that link works!
Loyalty to president ranks #1, Ideology ranks #2, political connections ranks #3, potential future positioning in the judicial system ranks #4, aggressive prosecutions of opposition #5, and so on— experience , related skill set, education, intelligence and integrity are only minor considerations
Iglesias obviously was terrible at looking for voter fraud.
My wife was fired by Target.
She worked for them for 14 years. She received Glowing employee evaluations. She was a model employee. She missed like 5 day of work in 14 years. She recieved numerous employee comendations. She learned her job inside out and even the store manager would ask her questions and ask her how to do things.
She was told by the store manager to do something that turned out to be against company policy. It was reinforced by the assistant manager and condoned by her section manager as well as the present security officer in the store. Everyone said, yeah thats okay you can do that.
Well a new security chief is Hired. In his zeal he says hey wait a minute thats against company policy. Instead of confronting the situation he calls the Police and has my wife arrested in the store for shop lifting. Marched out in handcuffs while everyone who told her to do what she was doing ran for cover and denied knowing anything about it.
Her crime. Broken items that could not be returned to vendors for credit were marked down drastically and put in a bin in the back room for employees to purchase if they chose. After one day of being in the bin they were put on the floor as clearance and sold to customers. Her crime. She purchased a roll of damaged paper towels for 19 cents.
Fair? NO. Were they within their rights to fire her. Yes. it quite plainly said in the employee handbook that you cannot mark down products and then purchase them yourself.
She was embarrassed, harrassed and led away in handcuffs for buying a 19 cent roll of damaged paper towels and a 4 dollar mirror that was broken.
So while I understand the Attorneys indignation and the Democrats uproar. Alberto Gonzalez can fire them for whatever reason he sees fit and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
Fair? No. But it is the Law.
Hawkish-
“Then the law is a ass”
HawkishDove–
I don’t think it’s legal to lie to Congress. Attorney General Gonzales may have done so.
Also, the title of this post is “Maybe It Is ‘Legal’, But Is It ‘Right’?” I think most everyone concedes it was legal to fire the US Attorneys. The question being asked is, Was it right? Our elected officials are subject to greater scrutiny that managers of private companies. I think that’s a good idea. Because, really, don’t you sometimes think the real offenses involve what’s legal for politicians?
Lastly, I’m sorry to hear about your wife. Led out in handcuffs! I hope she didn’t end up with any kind of criminal record. And, more importantly, I hope she got a job outside of retail!!
“Alberto Gonzalez can fire them for whatever reason he sees fit and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.”
No…you can see whether the firing was to obstruct justice which is illegal. You can also try to make it a political issue and convince people that the law should be changed because it’s not serving the People’s interest; after all we are their bosses.
What will probably happen is what normally happens. There is an investigation to see if a law was broken, people lied during the investigation for political reasons and then they get caught. Of course the faux outrage of “that person is going to jail for lying about something that might not even have been a crime” is sickening because it suggests that our elected officials should be perfectly free to lie about things to avoid any (legal or political) accountability.
How is the populace suppossed to hold the elected (and by extension appointed) officials responsible if they lie every time there might have been misdeeds?
I also feel the need to point out two things. Appointed officials might serve at the pleasure of the president but the president serves at the “pleasure” of the People. Trying to distance the populace from its government using rhetoric like this Administration does is dangerous.
How do the People most directly participate? Through their representatives of course. Congress is not just a legal body it is also a political one. Sometimes they focus on policy and law but they have an equally important function to represent the will of the People as a political force as well. The attack that something Congress is doing is “political” is stupid because part of their job is to assess how well the government is working so they can report it back to their constituents. Of course Congress can be too political but then the incumbents will lose their elections.
Basically if something like this prosecutor thing happens it doesn’t necessarily have to be illegal for congress to investigate it and make a political judgement. The reason why it’s illegal to lie to Congress (who after all can’t officially prosecute or charge people with crimes) is because it prevents them from carrying out this function.
“Maybe it’s legal but is it right?”
Is this really a serious question? Whether or not something is “right” in a political context largely depends on your politics, no? So how does this kind of argument answer anything? Everyone has a different opinion on what is “right” and what is “wrong.” That’s why we have laws in the first place so “right” and “wrong” are codified.
The firings were obviously stupid politically, but they were legal. Don’t like it? Change the law. If anyone perjured themselves, bust them, but ultimately these are political appointments and therefore it’s a political issue.
My wife found a better job. The point of my story was that she was unfairly fired and when the truth came to light, those that were the most guilty fled for cover and pointed fingers at everyone but themselves.
Human nature. Their firings were not fair, but unfortunately they are not illegal and there is not much that can be done about it other then for the Democrats to hollar which is actually quite funny given the fact that Democrats are standing up for fired “Republican” Attorneys.
I think this story more then any other story serves to show at what lengths the Democrats are going to drive the nail into the Republicans coffin. The Republicans did nothing wrong and yet they are being persecuted as if we just found out George Bush had Jimmy Hoffa Murdered.
The minute the spotlight hits them they scurry in all directions pointing fingers at everyone and anyone and making up stories as if “Oh my Gawd what did we do wrong this time?” The Republicans are so shell shocked that they think anytime someone questions anything they do now they must have done something wrong. This political meltdown is going to go down in history as the greatest to ever take place in the history of the United States of America.
What I find even more sad is that the president shows no willingness to conceede that long after he is gone the party must continue on. This administration reminds me very much of Jimmy Carters which at every turn, at every juncture was met with more “disasterous and overwhelmingly bad news.” Nothing they could do could stem the bleeding. Pretty soon if little Susies cat was stuck in a tree and died. Somehow it became Jimmy Carters fault.
Yes, yes it is.
No, not at all.
If the situations were reversed, I would feel the exact same way I do now.
I find this to be wrong.
HawkishDove–
It’s a long jump to say “Republicans did nothing wrong”. I’m not even sure they did nothing illegal.
Again, there’s the question of the Attorney General lying to Congress.
I also think Mikkel is reasonable to bring up the question of obstruction of justice, though I doubt that’s going to satisfy anyone who thinks this is unfair.
I was alive and paying attention during the Clinton impeachment. What I noticed in the aftermath of the Libby verdict was this: it was as if each side had taken up the other side’s argument, word for word–with no acknowledgement that everyone had gone through the looking-glass.
There’s your human nature, I suppose.
To grab a couple of entropy’s points and expand (though mostly in opposition):
1) I do my best to have my political decisions, mostly meaning my votes, reflect what I independently think is right and wrong, not the other way around. I don’t think something is right because it matches my politics, and, if I do, that is a flaw in me. Right and wrong is not a matter of politics, despite the theorists on the left and right who explicitly argue otherwise.
2) I think that because people are often fired when they do illegal things, that people assume the only reason someone should be fired is if they do illegal things. This conflates what can be legally prosecuted with what can be morally condemned. If someone says something really stupid and offensive, I agree that they have the legal right to say it and should not be prosecuted. This does not mean I cannot simultaneously shout to the heavens about how stupid and wrong their comments were. If the person’s job is to represent the people of the United States and instead they are offending everyone, then they should probably be fired for doing their job poorly. Losing a job that was a great honor to have is not criminal prosecution for speech. Similarly, an Attorney General being fired for possibly getting rid of people for improper reasons is also not a violation of his legal rights.
This is all a long way to say that there are plenty of steps in between doing nothing and criminal prosecution. We should feel free to use them.
I’m aghast that the AG thinks nothing of lying to Congress. They should swear him in and grill him nonstop. If they find that he perjures himself, let him share Libby’s fate. The arrogance and corruption of absolute powerin this administration is breathtaking. Now I see why they are so secretive.
I’m no Constitutional scholar but this sounds way too much like overreaching to me. I don’t think you have to be a believer in the Unitary Executive theory to feel that the Chief Executive shouldn’t be able to be tied up in political knots by Congress in the way you’re suggesting, Mikkel.
“I don’t think you have to be a believer in the Unitary Executive theory to feel that the Chief Executive shouldn’t be able to be tied up in political knots by Congress in the way you’re suggesting, Mikkel.”
Hmmm. Virtually no Republican felt that way during the Clinton administration, CS. And I only give the qualification of virtually to be nice. I actually can’t remember any Republicans who didn’t revel in what was done to Clinton.
And it’s wrong, besides. Mikkel is completely correct in his explanation of why it’s wrong to lie to congress.
Well, Jim, you obviously didn’t know me or a lot of the Republicans that I know. I didn’t like Clinton personally and didn’t agree with a lot of his policies, but I thought then (as now) that Congress was overreaching and acting in an overly political way. I was angered by his lie under oath and I did feel there should have been some consequences for it but that doesn’t mean I agreed with the impeachment.
And besides, we’re still losing site of the fact that there WAS a law broken then. So even though I feel that the GOP Congress overreached with Clinton, we’re still comparing apples and oranges because what Mikkel is saying is that Congress ought to be able to launch investigations and issue subpeoneas even without any illegality, where the purpose would be to expose the political machinations of the other branch (party).
launch investigations and issue subpeoneas even without any illegality, where the purpose would be to expose the political
—————————-
The trouble is that no one can tell whether there was anything illegal until after the investigation is over.
The way this happened, there was certainly grounds for suspicion, and the subsequent investigation.
What is the grounds for suspicion of illegality, domajot? And how does what you are suggesting differ from the witchhunt mentality that led to the Clinton impeachment (keep digging till you either find something illegal or entrap someone into perjuring themselves and then you’ve got your illegality.)
CS-
Suspicion arose because of the odd timing and the selectivity of those fired.
Suspicion rose higher because of contradictory and false statements made.
Could we, once in a while, talk about the situation at hand without reliiving Clinton’s presidency? If a position is valid, it should be valid regardless of president or party. I voluntarily concede all of Clinton’s sins, but the guy in the WH now is Bush.
Its interesting to note that after 6 years of no oversight, any oversight is now viewed as a political witchhunt and overreaching. If nothing else raises anyone’s suspicions, having the top justice official in the US lie to Congress, which in itself is a crime, should raise a lot of suspicion about how the Dept has been operating. This may not rise to the level of criminal behavior, but the incompetence with which it has occurred, has undermined our Justice Dept, with USA’s all over the country feeling threatened as they go about doing their jobs.
Also, it is embarrassing to note that the top prosecution rates of some of those fired was not even a consideration, nor was their ongoing investigations. In the case of Carol Lam, her investigations have been set back- according to the FBI in San Diego. Maybe that was the whole point, and also why the GOP did not want the hearings held in the first place.
This quote from David Schraub’s piece, taken with Sampson’s 122 “I don’t remembers” (in one day!) taken with the loyalty lists, taken with a DOJ staffer who remembers Monica Goodling weeding out career officials at DOJ and replacing them with younger GOP loyalists, taken with the demoralization nationwide of the DOJ’s, taken with the statement of an FBI official in San Diego saying that Lam’s cases will now suffer immeasurably, taken with Sampsons admission that Fitzgerald’s name was considered for the list , taken with use of RNC email for correspondence about this matter, taken with Goodling’s disappearance from the scene—really tell the tale.
Gonzales has to all appearances, lied to Congress, which is a crime, and the 4 or 5 different explanations helped to bring this on the WH and DOJ. If its a witchhunt, it is one they brought upon themselves with their usual flair for candor and competence! this is an administration with a lot to hide.
KRitter: “..after 6 years of no oversight, any oversight is now viewed as a political witchhunt”
===============
This is a very important, even decisive, point. I don’t give credit to the Independents who fail to consider it.
There were suspicious circumstances, so holding hearings is legitimately just oversight.
If the Dems take advantage of it in speeches, that’s politics.
It only becomes a witchhunt if they overdo it and start demanding irrevelant information.
That hasn’t happened yet, so the protests here are too premature by far.