Quite Unprecedented' Former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White

[cal04]

Former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White explains why the firing of eight federal prosecutors could threaten the historic independence of federal law-enforcement officials.


Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resisted new calls for his resignation Wednesday over the growing scandal about the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. To understand why these firings have become such a politically charged issue, NEWSWEEK’s Julie Scelfo spoke with Mary Jo White, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was appointed by President Clinton and served for nearly nine years, even staying on for 10 months after President Bush took office and ordered three other New York federal prosecutors to step down. White, who earned national prominence for the successful prosecutions of numerous terrorism and white-collar cases, is now a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York. Excerpts:

(snip)
President Bush’s defenders have been asking why there’s such a fuss when even President Clinton removed all 93 U.S. attorneys in the early days of his administration.
Essentially, all U.S. attorneys, as political appointees, are expected to be replaced when the party changes. Although I think President Clinton made those changes too abruptly for an orderly transition, replacing political appointees is part of the normal political process when the party of the president changes. It is an entirely different matter when replacement of the U.S. attorneys are made during the same administration.

(snip)
So it’s atypical to be replaced in the middle of a president’s term?
It’s quite atypical, absent some misconduct or other quite significant cause. What’s happened here, in my experience and to my knowledge, is quite unprecedented. And, if it turns out to be the case that some of the U.S. attorneys may have been removed for reasons of not bringing, or not bringing fast enough, politically charged cases, or they weren’t “loyal” to the president, then it becomes very, very disturbing. They should not, in my view, be removed lightly, and never for a political reason. Again I caution, though, that facts are coming out every day.

(snip)
Recently released documents show a great deal of correspondence between the White House Counsel's office and Kyle Sampson, the Attorney General's chief of staff who resigned on Tuesday. Did you find it surprising the White House was so involved in the firings?
The whole series of events has been, in my judgment, highly unusual and completely unprecedented. Having said that, every U.S. attorney is subject to removal by the president. So at some point you would expect some White House involvement if indeed you were removing a presidentially appointed U.S. attorney.


more
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17627519/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

[Double T]

1. The 'historic independence' of ALL branches of government have.........

been canceled under the bushco dictatorship.

[lyonn]

2. When Clinton took office the repubs had been in control

of all appointed U.S. Attys. for 20 years except for the four years that Carter was in office wedged into that 24 yr. time period. Of course Clinton wanted a clean sweep and quickly. That's how I see it anyway.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. this could be the scandal

that brings down Bushco. Even Repukes realize that it isn't good have US Attorneys set on a political agenda--they would become another branch of Rove's Dirty Tricks.

[aquart]

4. And then the Democrats would have the right to do the same.

And that's something that they don't want with Dems in power. Shortsighted assholes.

[POAS]

5. US attorneys are not lifetime appointments

they are given 4 year appointments. Four years is NOT an arbitrary number. There terms are 4 years to coincide the with Presidential terms of office so that when a new President (especially when the party changes) is sworn in he may replace the USA's with those more closely alligned to the goals and policies of the new President.

The attorneys do not automatically leave office at teh end of their 4 year term. They are carried over and are essentially employed "at the pleasure of the President" so that as their replacements are named and approved by Congress there is a time for a smooth transition.

What Clinton did was to make a clean sweep at the beginning of his term, probably due to the extended period of time since the last Democratic Administration so that few if any of the USA's would have been philosophically compatible with the incoming administration.