This is a real dog-bites-man story that is getting a lot of play for partisan reasons. US Attys are and always have been political appointees; the term of the appointment is 4 years; and the position is high-profile and much sought-after. Just as they are appointed by politicians with political considerations (among others) in mind, the same factors are in play when their term is up (or even when it isn't) and they are sometimes removed or replaced for political reasons. Those reasons often include the desire by the senators who effectively control these appointments to name a protege or someone to whom a political favor is owed. As with district judges, the long-standing tradition (followed for many years in Dem and Rep administrations alike) is that a nominee for the US Atty position is "recommended" to the President by the senator(s) of the President's party in the state at issue. And senators, being familiar with the political calendar, know that they have to act before their power to control the appointment may end because of an upcoming Presidential election.

What you are seeing is that system play out as it has done for decades. It's getting a lot of attention by columnists and reporters who are more than happy to jab the Bush and the Republicans when an opportunity presents; these stories usually appear in papers normally associated with the interests and worldview of the Dems. The criticism has gotten dressed up a bit with claims that the senators and other politicos pushing to replace some of these US Attys have specific gripes about the incumbents in mind, and (say it aint so!) some of those gripes relate to how the incumbents handled politically significant investigations. I've seen that sort of thing most pointedly aimed at Sen. Domenici (R-NM), for example, in the current kerfuffle. But that, too, is par for the course. For variations on the same theme, you will recall that President Clinton's supporters expressed a lot of criticism of Ken Starr, and Sen. Clinton now often votes "no" when Bush nominates someone who had anything to do with Ken Starr's investigations. Sen. Schumer (D-NY) too has also been known to bear a grudge against the prosecutors in the EDNY who once led an investigation into his conduct (when he was a NYS legislator).

Politicians bearing grudges and acting on those grudges when an appointment is at issue? Now there's a news flash ...

Zzzzz. Clinton fires every single US Attorney, and that's A-OK. Bush fires eight and that's a political scandal. The hypocrisy here is so ripe it's embarrassing.

Zzzzz. Clinton fires every single US Attorney...

This is misinformation - every President coming in to replace the other party fires and rehires as a group. The point is that after being confirmed by the Senate the prosecutors are to be left alone, and not pressured by political hacks in Congress or in the White House. Such pressure can be not only improper, but illegal, as a form of obstruction of justice. If Lam was threatened with firing for pursuing the GOP corruption cases in San Diego that would clearly be felony obstruction of justice.

The Pearl Harbor Day firings were punishment for US Attorneys who did not press questionable voter fraud cases intended to help the GOP win narrow races. Harriet Meirs and Rove were behind it, and it is clearly an abuse of power. Otherwise, why did Gonzales just perjure himself to Congress last week trying to deny it?

"This is misinformation - every President coming in to replace the other party fires and rehires as a group."

It's not misinformation, it's the truth. Only in the "reality-based community" would the truth be called misinformation.

You proved my point - Presidents fire US attorneys for political reasons ALL THE TIME.

"after being confirmed by the Senate the prosecutors are to be left alone"

Where does this supposed norm come from? The US Attorneys are Presidential appointments, not civil servants. There is absolutely no reason that the President should not be able to fire his Presidential appointments.

"The Pearl Harbor Day firings were punishment for US Attorneys who did not press questionable voter fraud cases intended to help the GOP win narrow races."

Gee, the head of the department chooses to fire deputies who don't do what the head wants. I'm shocked. What's next - Democrats stating that Generals should not be fired for refusing to do what the Commander in Chief says to?

"Otherwise, why did Gonzales just perjure himself to Congress last week trying to deny it?"

I like how you provide zero evidence to back up this assertion.

1. NOT all the time - just when there is a change of administration.

2. The 'supposed norm' of non-interference with prosecutors is fundamental to the separation of powers. In some cases, violating this 'supposed norm' can involve violating the law. There is good reason to suspect the two of the firings constituted obstruction of justice, which is a crime. Not committing criminal acts is a pretty sound norm, but then it is hard to argue about norms with such moral and ethical relativists.

3. The US Attorneys were, until recently, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Thus, summarily firing them amounts to a circumvention of Congressional power. Read up on the Andrew Johnson impeachment and you will see some interesting parallels.

4. Gonzalez stated under oath to the Senate Judiciary committee he would never pressure a US Attorney over political prosecutions. Now there is documentary evidence he was doing exactly that. Maybe there was a Clintonian use of the subjunctive when the pressure was all past tense - I don't know. But we will all know soon.

1. Do US Presidents generally fire their own US Attorneys, the ones they appointed?

No.

2. Do US Attorneys generally get fired to make room for WH CoS proteges?

No.

3. Do US Attorneys generally get their jobs without Congressional confirmation?

No.

4. Do Attorneys General generally let their CoS work directly with the WH on firing and hiring US Attorneys, without supervision, or oversight, or otherwise not knowing what's going on?

No.

5. Do US Attorneys generally get fired because they're not helping a particular Party's candidates get elected, or because they're uncovering too much corruption by the same Party as the President?

No.

This has been another episode of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

"NOT all the time - just when there is a change of administration"

Which happens... regularly.

"The 'supposed norm' of non-interference with prosecutors is fundamental to the separation of powers."

You're kidding, right? Do you realize that the prosecutors and the people that fired them are both part of the SAME BRANCH - the executive branch? There is absolutely no separation of powers concerns in firing a person in your own branch.

"The US Attorneys were, until recently, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Thus, summarily firing them amounts to a circumvention of Congressional power. Read up on the Andrew Johnson impeachment and you will see some interesting parallels."

Perhaps you should do some more reading yourself. The Supreme Court, in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), specifically held that the President held exclusive power to fire his appointees, even if they were subject to advise and consent of the Senate upon their appointment. In fact, any interference in the President's exclusive power to fire his appointees is unconstitutional. Your point is directly contrary what the Supreme Court has held. (And it is now widely accepted that Andrew Johnson's impeachment was a travesty since the law he "violated" was unconstitutional.)

"Gonzalez stated under oath to the Senate Judiciary committee he would never pressure a US Attorney over political prosecutions. Now there is documentary evidence he was doing exactly that."

Again, evidence please. As to both what Gonzales said and the supposed "documentary evidence" that shows it is false. Not that I don't believe you... it's just that everything else in your entire post was wrong.

5. Do US Attorneys generally get fired because they're not helping a particular Party's candidates get elected, or because they're uncovering too much corruption by the same Party as the President?

This gets to the root of the scandal. The problem isn't that the administration fired some attorneys, but that they were fired for investigating Republicans too much and not investigating Democrats enough (for the tastes of Republicans).

A.S.- you are not arguing with what I am saying, just with your rather tortured reading of what I am saying. Still,

1. You skipped the point in argument 1, as it had to do with when and how US Attorneys are replaced, not whether or not it is 'regular' or not. Point conceded.

2.Balance of powers issues arise within branches of government as well as between them. I stated the issues were similar to that in the Johnson impeachment, not that they were legally the same, or that the law Johnson violated was constitutional. Prosecutorial discretion and independence rely on the US Attorneys being insulated from political pressure from Congress and the President, while being accountable to both.

This means, among other things, that while the President may replace a US Attorney, he may not threaten to do so in order to improperly pressure that prosecutor. Otherwise the US Attorneys are as beholden to political pressure as the Soviet prosecutors conducting Stalin's purges.

As for Gonzales, check the recent statements by Leahy and Specter. They sure think they have been lied to. As I said before, the next few days will reveal if that is the case. I am having trouble embedding my link, but a short presentation of the allegd lie can be found at
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/1/202413/2611

All the attorneys fired were Republicans. As their Congressional testimony shows, all were highly competent and all had a scrupulous respect for the restraints that apply to prosecutors in a free society (one where the executive is bound by the niceties of law, often to its great frustration).

Why then were they fired? Because elected officials and those who report to them were desirous of exceeding the bounds of law and propriety to weaken the opposition party and advance the interests of their own.

The president's fervent defenders would see this with perfect clarity if the president and attorney general responsible for such actions were Democrats. They would then hasten to agree with Andrew Sullivan that it's pretty obvious "that they've been caught trying to rig the justice system to perpetuate [Democratic] control of the House and Senate."

"1. You skipped the point in argument 1, as it had to do with when and how US Attorneys are replaced, not whether or not it is 'regular' or not. Point conceded."

Yes, the "when" would be whenever the President wants, and the "how" is really "why" - and it is for whatever reason the President wants, including for purely political reasons, like when the purely political reasons that Clinton fired all of the US Attonreys in 1993.

I am gratified that you concede the point, though.

"Balance of powers [sic] issues arise within branches of government as well as between them."

I think you understand neither separation of powers nor balance of powers, if you are getting those concepts mixed up. And, no, separation of powers issues do not occur within a branch, since separation of powers is defined as the relationship between the branches.

"I stated the issues were similar to that in the Johnson impeachment, not that they were legally the same, or that the law Johnson violated was constitutional."

And, as I said, the Johnson impeachment is now considered to be a debacle because the issue over which he was impeached - firing a Presidential appointee without consent of Congress - is now after Myers considered to be an unconstitutional restriction on the President's executive power.

"Prosecutorial discretion and independence rely on the US Attorneys being insulated from political pressure from Congress and the President, while being accountable to both."

Consider the firings to be accountability.

"a short presentation of the allegd lie can be found at
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/1/202413/2611"

Ah, DailyKos. Now I see what the problem is.

There is utterly no difference between what Clinton did and what Bush did. Were some of the US attorneys involved in politically-involved cases? Absolutely. And so were some of the US Attorneys Clinton fired, including the US Attorney of Arknsas who was investigating Clinton's pal Webb Hubbell at the time.

You persist in conceding points by answering only peripheral issues. Why don't you give a cite for your red herring about Clinton, specifically, replacing the prosecutor of the Webb Hubble case, mid term, with a hack who drops the case (as took place in the Abramoff case in the Marianas?)

The best evidence that the current set of talking points out of the White House are hollow and hopeless is that you can't find them discussed, much less endorsed, over at Volokh.com. No-one wants to go on the record defending Gonzales, so no-one there wants to even talk about it.

I'm sure there are good arguments to be made on both sides of the issue, and hopefully we'll hear them argued in a court of law. However, it's pretty clear that after Iraq, Katrina and Walter Reed, not many people are willing to give this administration the benefit of the doubt. I'd be willing to bet that Gonzales gets hung out to dry, much like Tenet, Rumsfeld, and Libby.

Since when has this site gone moonbat. Katrina= "heckuva job" Iraq="mission acomplished/freedom is messy" and Walter Reed is fault of Bill Clinton and the pre-1994 democratic congress because they don't support the troops!

Yeah, yeah, nothing here guys, nothing to look at, move along, move along, Clinton did it too, yada yada...

Ha!

cevqp ikfmjaerl pmoibd ftzjyl ftzxlkqr acrl njsuvrpi

sroj uhnis ukczrpqj fsopy msqze scwhye ndbwzuqjh