So, what's the big deal about the firing of U.S. Attorneys?

[NOTE: This post will not include all the evidence and citation to sources it should, but I wanted to get it published before Kyle Sampson testifies before Congress today. I might add in more facts and citations at a later time.]

I answered this question in part in my first post on this matter on March 15, and this post will expand on that answer. Here's a preview: 1) the firings are not as important as the hirings; 2) several complaints about the firings, when considered separately and alone, are not a big deal; 3) when those complaints are viewed as a whole, it is clear that the Bush administration was trying to turn DoJ into a tool to carry out a political agenda rather than enforce the law; 4) the Bush administration is trying to establish a system by which all forms of oversight and checks and balances are circumvented.

The fact that the firings were partisan and political in nature is not a big deal. There is no question that the U.S. Attorneys (USAs) were forced out because of political reasons. Need proof? Go to Talking Points Memo and TPM Muckraker and start reading the posts on this matter from February 28, 2007, forward. I think those are bullshit reasons, but, in the overall scheme of things (speaking broadly), standing alone, they present no reason for outrage or scandal. U.S. Attorneys are part of the Department of Justice (DoJ), which means that although they work in the judicial system, they are part of the Executive Branch. Thus, they are appointed by the President, and, as we have heard repeatedly, they serve at the pleasure of the President. There is no law which requires a President to keep U.S Attorneys that were appointed or served in previous administrations. Moreover, it is understandable that any President would want people in the Executive Branch that share his views and positions. Indeed, such a move further makes some sense in that the DoJ is responsible for helping to enforce the law (more on that later). If there are certain existing laws which the President wants to emphasize or new laws the President seeks to create, it is not unreasonable that he would want the people who enforce those laws to be in agreement with him. And again, there is no law against cleaning house and putting in his own people.

See, if the Bush administration had just said "We fired these USAs for strictly partisan reasons because we did not like their politics and we wanted people that agree with us politically," there still would have been a big negative reaction, but there would have been no basis for a scandal. However, the Bush administration did not say that the firings were for partisan or political reasons. Instead, the Bush administration claimed that the firings were performance related, as in those that were fired were doing a poor job.

To make a long story short, that rationale has been debunked. The facts have shown that the USAs were fired because they did not pursue investigations and indictments against Democrats and/or did aggressively investigate and/or pursued indictments against Republicans. Believe it or not, that fact, standing alone, does not comprise a big deal for me. Although I think those are also bullshit reasons, I do not see them as a basis for a scandal for the reasons discussed above.

Now, basically lying about the reasons for the firings approaches being a big deal, but it leads me to ask further questions. Why lie in the first place? If the reasons for the firings were objectionable but nonetheless understandable (for instance, for purely partisan political reasons), why not just come out and say that and take the usual Bush position of telling everyone to just shut up and take it? Ah, there are answers to those questions, so read on...

I assume that since the Bush administration has not been truthful about the reasons for the firings and has not simply said they were done for strictly partisan reasons, they are trying to get away with something that is highly objectionable and dangerous.

And now we are getting closer to what is really going on...On March 15 I said the following:

This whole scheme was designed to turn DoJ into Bush's political hit squad. In other words, the U.S. Attorney (USA) offices across the nation would be occupied by Bush political operatives, working almost solely to achieve political ends. This would be a way to consolidate power in the White House while reducing the power and oversight of the Congress so that the Bush administration could achieve through alternative means what could not be done directly through Congress.

We now know from the document dump that the DoJ was rating USAs on the basis of whether they were "loyal Bushies" and that one objective was to replace the fired attorneys with "loyal Bushies." Again, standing alone, this is not a big deal. However, start putting the pieces together, and the result affirms what I said on March 15.

One piece concerns the appointment of USAs. They are appointed by the President and then subject to confirmation by the Senate. However, there was a provision in the Patriot Act that allowed the Attorney General to appoint interim USAs for indefinite terms without consulting with or getting the approval of the Senate.

So here is what was going on...USAs were being fired for going after Republicans and not going after Democrats. There was also a ratings process underway based entirely on political loyalty to Bush, not competence. The Bush administration was trying to replace the "non Bushies" with "loyal Bushies." The Bush administration wanted to use these new USAs to go after Democrats and keep the law away from Republicans. And the Bush administration wanted to do this for every U.S. Attorney. In other words, the reason these new USAs would be put in office would be to be a political hit squad. And all of this would be carried out with no oversight by Congress, which would be a major change.

The final piece of this puzzle is the Mission Statement of the DoJ:

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

Nowhere does it state that the mission of the DoJ is to carry out the political agenda of a given President or party. And by "political agenda" I mean going after your enemies in order to drive them out of or keep them from power while making sure your friends do not have to face any sanction for their conduct, thus helping them stay in power. That has nothing to do with enforcing the law in a fair and impartial way for all Americans. That has nothing to do with defending the interests of the United States. To the contrary, that is how things are done in authoritarian regimes, folks.

That is a big deal. And that is why this whole matter of the firing of the USAs is important.