The Right Wing Bloggers and the Justice Department Scandal

[Jack Rabbit]

Right wing bloggers and FoxNews propagandists are hardly finished explaining why Scooter Libby is a hero for lying to a grand jury when they have been called to arms again to defend the Bush junta for firing eight US Attorneys on a false pretext of performance issues. They claim the matter as being no big deal.

If I may slip into my Claude Rains impersonation: <i>I'm shocked, </i>shocked<i> I say, to learn that the right wing is distorting the issue.</i>

First of all, they compare apples and oranges with the "Clinton did it, too" screed. Yes, Clinton dismissed US Attorneys and replaced them with his own people after he was first elected president. As did Reagan after he was elected. As did Carter after he was elected. As did Bush after he was appointed by the Supreme Court. There is nothing unusual about that. Nobody calling this particular set of firings into question is saying there's anything unusual about that or anything wrong.

However, this particular set of firings was done midterm, directed at those attorneys who resisted political pressure to speed up cases against Democrats or who brought cases against high-profile Republicans like Duke Cunningham. These firings were politically motivated. Although Mr. Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the firings were performance related, that has little credibility in light of the fact that seven of the eight received good performance reviews.

The one fired attorney whose has been named to date, Bud Cummings, was replaced by Tommy Griffin, an associate of Karl Rove who specialized in "opposition research." In short, Mr. Griffin is a partisan political hack. Is that the kind of professional we want in that position? If past is prologue, it is the kind with which Bush habitually fills vacancies.

Since it is true that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President (or <i>presumptive</i> President, as the case may be), neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Gonzales may have broken any laws by firing the attorneys. However, that doesn't make it right or even benign. These firings were without any cause other than political. A few officers were shot in order to encourage the others to bend to the partisan political needs of the White House and the president's party. This is high handed interference with the independence the attorneys need to pursue cases. While no laws may have been broken other than Mr. Gonzales possibly having perjured himself by saying the firings were performance related while under oath, that is an abuse of power and entirely unethical. That in itself is grounds for Mr. Gonzales' dismissal either by the President who can simply request his resignation or by Congress through the impeachment process.

Mr. Gonzales also testified to the Judiciary Committee that the replacements for the fired US Attorney would have their names submitted to the Senate for confirmation. However, it seems that was not the original plan. Instead, it was planned to skirt around the Senate and the judicial branch by using a provision of the Patriot Act allowing the Attorney General to appoint the replacements. The intent of such a provision makes sense in the event of a devastating attack on the country that renders the normal machinery of government unworkable, but here the problem seems to be that the Senate would not have confirmed Bush's political hacks in the wake of firings of questionable motivation. Perhaps some right wing blogger will proclaim that the voters launched a devastating attack on America last November by throwing congressional Republicans out and taking Bush's rubber stamp away from him, which would justify the whole sordid affair.

At least in their dreams.