'The distinction
between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing' a
U.S. attorney something 'largely artificial.' They serve at the
pleasure of the president, and
'may be asked to
resign for almost any reason with no public or private explanation.'
'A U.S. Attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective,' 'either because he or she has alienated the leadership of the
department in Washington or cannot work constructively with law
enforcement or other governmental constituencies in the district
important to effective leadership of the office, is unsuccessful.'
One of the factors in judging U.S. attorneys' effectiveness is
'their support for the priorities of the president and the attorney
general.' If a prosecutor 'is resistant to the president's or the
attorney general's constitutional authority . . . or fails to
contribute to the important non-prosecutorial activities that come with
positions of leadership in the Justice Department, then that U. S.
attorney is not performing at a high level.'
It makes the charge that it's 'apparent that White House
officials were involved in the planning and replacement of U.S.
attorneys' hollow. The president, with help from aides, is
supposed to hire and fire U.S. attorneys.
It was also reported no 'effort to interfere with or influence the
investigation or prosecution of a particular case for political or
partisan advantage' in the removals of the prosecutors.
Where does this leave us? With another instance of the president
being ill-served by communication breakdowns on the part of
administration officials.
When 'Congress began to raise questions
about these removals,' the Justice Department's 'response was badly
mishandled,' causing 'what should have been a routine process of
assuring the Congress that nothing untoward occurred."
Leahy, Schumer, other Democrats and Specter seem to want a replay of
the Scooter Libby scandal. They know the firing U.S. attorneys was no
crime, so they parse every word from Gonzales and others, hoping to
accuse more Bush appointees of, as Leahy puts it, 'misleading
explanations.'