While the Bush administration continues to deny that Karl Rove was involved in the firing of eight US Attorneys, and Alberto Gonzales continues to plead ignorance, emails released by the Justice Department tell a different story.
The latest emails show that Kyle Sampson discussed possible firings of US Attorneys with Gonzales in December 2004 (in an email dated January 9, 2005, Sampson says, “Judge [Sampson's nickname for Gonzales] and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago”); Gonzales wasn’t confirmed as AG till February 2005. Sampson’s email indicates that the administration wanted to get rid of US Attorneys that it considered insufficiently loyal, even though he he had no evaluations in hand to indicate which ones were “underperforming”:
As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys — the underperforming ones. (This is a rough guess; we might want to consider doing performance evaluations after Judge comes on board.) The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.,…
It’s telling that Sampson was concerned about political fallout at a time when the Republican-majority Congress was still blindly going along with anything Bush wanted to do.
As a political matter, each of our U.S. Attorneys has been recommended by one or more political leaders in their home State. I suspect that when push comes to shove, home-State Senators likely would resist wholesale (or even piecemeal) replacement of U.S. Attorneys they recommended (see Senator Hatch and the Utah U.S. Attorney). That said, if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I. [emphasis mine]
After all the back and forth, Bushco held off on the firings until after the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which took place in March 2006. Nominees for U.S. Attorney had been subject to Senate confirmation, but the newly “strengthened” bill included a little provision that allows the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys who can serve indefinitely without Senate approval. Now why on earth would the Attorney General need that kind of power? Was this just another step in the inexorable march toward a unitary executive? Or was it specifically intended to permit the President’s buddy Al to appoint loyal political toadies to serve as federal prosecutors?
Wheeler at Alablawg points out that these prosecutors hold tremendous power. It’s imperative that the American people be able to trust that they will be as independent and impartial as it is humanly possible to be. If they are turned into partisan political tools of any administration, our justice system loses its integrity.
Not to worry, though. This whole kerfuffle is just a series of “mistakes” that were made in a vacuum, independent of any action by an Administration official. Well, except for Harriet Miers, whom the White House has attempted to designate as scapegoat du jour. Nothing to see here, move along.
More lies, secrets, and doing as “they” please.
It’s disgusting.