Of course it's not politics

Through this date, how many U.S. Attorneys -- appointed by the Bush administration -- have been forced out by the Justice Department as a part of an inexplicable purge?

And why?

It's hard to tell how many, but at least eight or nine are known to have been forced out in recent months, and there may be others.

The departures were allowed by an obscure provision in the USA Patriot Act Two passed last year that allows the President to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys for an indefinite period without the usual Senate and judicial involvement. Congress clearly didn’t take notice of the provision that a Bush administration operative quietly slipped into the legislation at the last minute before it was passed. But now it seems clear that the executive-strengthening measure is being used to conduct a political purge of U.S. attorneys’ offices.

Many Senate Democrats -- and some Republicans -- have been concerned about the sudden replacements, since some of the U.S. Attorneys involved were in the middle of serious investigations, including some of Republican corruption. Carol Lam, the San Diego prosecutor who just indicted the former No. 3 man at the CIA in part of a growing military procurement scandal is only one example. Also, the White House didn't let members of Congress know what they were doing when they did it.

It seems peculiar that attorneys who were well-qualified, well-liked, and well-respected in their cities, by colleagues of both parties, were being replaced with people whose resumes are strong on Republican political work and not so strong on investigatory or prosecutorial work.

Why were they forced out? The Justice Department was quick to tell Democratic senators that there was nothing to be concerned about. When called on that in a Judiciary Committee hearing, Deputy AG Paul McNulty said the attorneys were fired for performance issues. When called on that bogus claim -- most of the Gonzales eight or nine or whatever had recently received excellent job-performance ratings -- the reason became policy disagreements. The replaced U.S. Attorneys allegedly had not been prosecuting vigorously enough the areas designated as top priority by the Justice Department. A review of records turned that reason bogus, too. Besides, if the attorneys were canned for not following administration policy, why was this fact withheld even from them?

Was it politics, then? Why, heavens, no, the Justice Department declaimed when such was suggested by Democrats in Congress. "Allegations that politics inappropriately interfere with personnel decisions made about U.S. Attorneys are reckless and plainly wrong," department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.

Of course it was not politics in February that led Senate Republicans to the blocking of a vote on amending the USA Patriot Act Two to remove the language allowing the Presidential appointments of U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation and judicial involvement.

Exactly why it is "reckless and plainly wrong" to imply that politics are involved becomes perfectly clear if you consider that the White House counsel phoned the Attorney General's office to suggest that a former RNC political director and deputy to Karl Rove get a job as a U.S. Attorney, summarily replacing an established incumbent who had done nothing wrong. The incumbent apparently had been doing almost everything right -- except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was in Arkansas, where a Republican political operative in the position surely would not stoop so low as to use his office to dig into Hilliary Clinton's past for dirt to be used against her in her presidential quest. Surely not.

The House Judiciary subcommittee has subpoenaed several of the Gonzales eight or nine or whatever to look into what is an extraordinary occurrence -- something that has not happened in the course of U.S. Attorney appointments and dismissals and replacements. The hearings are scheduled to begin on March 6, 2007.