home

The Rove E-Mail

By Jeralyn, Section Law Related
Posted on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:52:52 PM EST
Tags: Alberto Gonzales (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The newly released Rove e-mail raises a question of the White House's honesty in its original statement that the idea of possibly replacing all 93 U.S. Attorneys originated with Harriet Miers. It also shows that Alberto Gonzales was aware it was being discussed before he was confirmed as Attorney General, while he was still White House counsel.

The White House said Thursday night that the e-mails did not contradict the previous statements about former White House counsel Harriet Miers' role. The e-mail exchange, dated January 6, 2005, is between then-deputy White House counsel David Leitch and Kyle Sampson at the Justice Department. According to a senior White House official who has seen the e-mail exchange, "It's not inconsistent with what we have said."

The email is here.

It certainly is customary for Presidents to replace the previous President's U.S. Attorneys after an election. What's unusual here is that Bush was considering replacing his own appointments, since this was his second term.

So, what's the fuss about? One thing is whether the idea really originated with Harriet Miers. A second is timing...the discussions started earlier than the White House initially said. TPM Muckraker has put together a timeline. A third is whether the Administration told the truth when it said the idea of dismissing all the U.S. Attorneys was rejected out of hand as soon as Miers suggested it.

More...

There's also the issue of why these particular 8 U.S. Attorneys were fired...was it for performance reasons as the White House claimed? Or was it because they didn't aggressively pursue the Administration's enforcement priorities or didn't refrain from pursuing cases the White House didn't want brought?

Finally, there's the issue of whether the White House intended to make an end run around the Senate confirmation process by using recess appointments under new powers granted by amendments to the Patriot Act?

I'm not impressed by Senator Schumer's grandstanding on the issue. He's milking this and there's going to be a huge disappointment and backlash if there was no grand conspiracy other than to put Bush loyalists in the U.S. Attorney jobs. The job has always been a political plum, as I explained here.

The issue is more that once appointed, U.S. Attorneys need to make fair and impartial decisions about who to prosecute and who to decline to prosecute. The partisanship should end once they are in the job. The White House, if it fired only those whom they viewed as not aggressively enough pursuing Bush's agenda, tarnished the Justice Department as a whole.

< Endorsing Doing Nothing on Iraq | Maryland Effort to Abolish Death Penalty Defeated >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Rove E-Mail | 3 comments (3 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    No mean feat... (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    You managed to say "white house" and "honesty" in the same sentence.

    It's the why (none / 0) (#2)
    by Joe Bob on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    The issues surrounding the US attorney purge are pretty simple. There are really only two questions that matter:

    • Were attornies fired in an effort to obstruct future or ongoing investigations, or as payback for past investigations (e.g.: Carol Lam & Duke Cunningham)?

    • Were attornies fired because they declined to bring meritless public integrity cases against Democratic officials or otherwise refused to use the USA's office for political hatchet jobs?  

    Everything else is just muddying the water. I don't think anyone is saying that Bush doesn't have the right to replace the attorneys, even if it is unusual to name midterm replacements to his own appointees. As far as ducking confirmation hearings, they got that one fair and square. They got a provision into a bill and no one objected when something could still be done about it.

    Hardly (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:49:12 PM EST
    The issue is more that once appointed, U.S. Attorneys need to make fair and impartial decisions about who to prosecute and who to decline to prosecute.
    What you are suggesting, in the broad sense, is that there is, or should be, no interpretation of law., ie., the law is absolute and it's a black-and-white issue as to who to spend scarce resources on in order to pursue an indictment, and who not to.

    Obviously that is not the legal system we have.

    One's interpretation of law depends to some extent, perhaps a large extent, on one's ideology.

    If ideology didn't influence interpretation, for example, neither the Dems nor Repubs would particularly care who is appointed to the SCOTUS because all the MIB's interpretations would be in a ideology-free, black-and-white, "fair and impartial" vacuum.

    Obviously this is not the case.

    One man's "fair and impartial" has anyone - and everyone - (including 7 year-olds) arrested for illegally riding off-road motorcycles on public city streets and/or sidewalks, while another man uses his "common sense" not to arrest 7 year-olds for this. For example.

    I am not saying, or course, that the USA's should only pursue, or choose not to pursue, indictments based solely on ideology.

    All that said, some simple questions directly relating to your comment:

    Should the alleged Dem. New Mexico corruption scandal at the center of the USA dismissals issue be pursued or not?

    And if the answer is yes (as an impartial and fair analysis should dictate, imo) why shouldn't it be done at any time, asap, regardless of political timing?

    And if it is pursued at a particularly bad time for the opposition, how is that not politics as usual?

    The Rove E-Mail | 3 comments (3 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment