« Dick Cheney and "The Colonel Klink Rule" | Main | The Firings of U.S. Attorneys: A View From A Distance »
March 13, 2007
"If They Won't Indict Democrats, Fire Their Asses and Get Me People Who Will"
Rove's general point, echoing all over the right side of the media, is a truism.
But how can that truism be squared with the evidence that the firings appear to be tied to these prosecutors' decisions either to pursue Republicans or to refrain from pursuing Democrats. That is, we had U.S. Attorneys who refused to make the federal criminal justice system an extension of the White House's political activities.
The role of a U.S. Attorney -- unlike, say, the Treasury Secretary -- is unique in the executive branch in that the position's core responsibilities are non-political. The Supreme Court explained it this way in Berger v. United States:
The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
Perhaps it's the principle that a U.S. Attorney "is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law" that bothered this White House. These are people, unfortunately, whose view of the Constitution appears to be that the President is the fountainhead of the law in this country -- i.e., the law shall be executed as the president decides it should be and no one can say otherwise.
In other words, the "law" as some general standard to be applied evenhandedly is a myth for suckers.
Posted by shertaugh at March 13, 2007 1:42 PM
Comments
Elliot Richardson also served at the President's pleasure. That wasn't much of a defense for Nixon when he fired Richardson.
Posted by: Syd at March 13, 2007 7:56 PM
What is also troubling is that it is not just "this White House" that has been supporting the expansive and abusive range of powers that is exemplified by Bush, et. al., but all those who have voted for, financed and otherwise enabled them in distorting the very substance of a fair and balanced government. That would be the entire Republican Party; they should be held responsible for everything that has transpired the past six years, not just Bush. No Republican deserves to be elected unless they denounce the destruction that Republican Party has wrought across this country and vows to restore fairness and fair-play in all governmental affairs.
Posted by: DavidLA at March 17, 2007 7:59 PM
It's a simple question:
Does the President, or the Attorney General acting in his official capacity as the duly appointed head of this branch of the Executive, have the authority to fire any and all US Attorneys with or without "cause" as defined by a need for any explanation, excuse, or mediating circumstance?
The answer to that question is just as simple:
Yes, he does.
There is no 'scandal'. There is no 'illegality'. There is no need for anyone to be subpoenaed nor is there cause for investigation.
The President, or his appointee(s), made the decision that they no longer required or desired the services of those eight US Attorneys.
End of story.
Unless you're someone whose ideology includes ignoring the rule of law for the sake of political expedience....
Posted by: CraigATL at March 21, 2007 11:42 PM
>>There is no 'scandal'. There is no 'illegality'. There is no need for anyone to be subpoenaed nor is there cause for investigation.
Wait a minute.. it's wishful thinking on your part that ILLEGAL is the sole threshold.
UNETHICAL behavior can be a scandal. UNETHICAL behavior can be investigated.
INCOMPETENT behavior can be a scandal. INCOMPETENT behavior can be investigated.
IMMORAL behavior can be a scandal. IMMORAL behavior can be investigated.
UNAMERICAN behavior can be a scandal. UNAMERICAN behavior can be investigated.
Posted by: KenSch at March 22, 2007 10:38 AM
OK - let's examine that.
You use 4 terms: Unethical, Incompetent, Immoral, and UnAmerican
Unethical - there are two ways to define "ethical" - either in terms of morality (which we'll cover under "immoral" - so lets leave off on that for a moment) or in terms of following the rules and standards of professionalism. There is not only a process and legal precedent to the firing of the US Attorneys by the AG and/or President, but it is specifically allowed for in the laws governing our country. I'm not going to banter tit-for-tat, "Clinton did xyz" or "Nixon did xyz" - suffice to say that this is not the first instance of this power of the Presidency/AG being utilized. If previous cases were accepted as appropriate usage, then, ethically speaking, there is no issue with unethical behavior in this incident either.
Incompetent - I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you mean that they didn't intend to fire the US Attorneys, that it happened by accident due to an error or mistake on the part of leadership, I could see your argument; however, as the email discourse has shown, this was a very deliberate, contemplated action that was completed as intended with full understanding of the process. Competency, or the lack thereof, is not in question here.
Immoral - morality as defined by what exactly? Law supercedes morality in that morality is inherently subjective and law, in its best practice, is intended to be objective. I fail to see, even if we ignore the law itself, how this act could be deemed "immoral". Once again, precedent shows that the firing of US Attorneys IS acceptable - not only as a utilization of granted authority but also as a unilateral decision made by the leadership without Congressional or public counsel.
UnAmerican - This is a quixotic statement. I would normally write such a statement off as simple ad hominem. To answer your intent, as I understand it, though, I will say that "Americanism" is a combination of a number of factors - Constitutional law and intent, Historical practice and precedent, and general popular opinion. The first two are easily answered in this case: the law allows for the action and history has shown the precedent by former leadership. So in those two respects, this action was certainly "American". Only the last category, "public opinion", is in question here. I would challenge you to show me why public opinion deems that THIS incident is unacceptable whereas previous instances were overlooked or even applauded. I think we both know why this is and that popular opinion, in and of itself, doesn't alter the law automatically.
One thing that seems to be very commonly overlooked in this incident is the fact that these attorneys serve at the "pleasure of the President". The President, or his appointees, were no longer pleased to have these attorneys serve and hence they were removed. To imply that this is "unfair" or "inappropriate" is without justification as the rules don't take into account such subjectivity of judgment by those outside the power base. There is no precedent, law, or process which dictates that the President/AG has to receive the permission of Congress, the opposition party, or the American people en masse.
Does that stick in the craw of some? Obviously it does. Should this lead to a change in the laws governing such appointments? That's an open debate certainly, but until such time that the law IS changed, there is no evidence, actual or implied, that any wrongdoing has occurred here.
Posted by: CraigATL at March 22, 2007 1:07 PM