We have all heard that US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Does that mean he can use them as a legal hit squad against whoever he wants? Can he say “you must seek indictment against this person or your fired?” If not, what law is he breaking?
See this thread from last month:
AFAIK all executive branch officials serve at the President’s pleasure.
He can, but remember that it takes a Grand Jury to actually indict someone. And most US attorneys are rather finicky about their independence, and would probably raise a stink about it.
That said, the President can fire them if he so chooses.
While the President can fire a US Attorney, a key point is that hiring a replacement used to be subject to confirmation in the Senate.
Thanks to a provision of the Patriot Act, this particular check/balance is no longer required (technically, it’s still specified, but the President can now put off the confirmation indefinitely, so that in practice it never has to happen).
The President can fire any U.S. Attorney, or any other political appointee, at any time for any reason good, bad or otherwise. That’s the President’s perogative, but the catch is that he faces the political fallout from his actions.
Perhaps the most closely analogous situation is the Saturday Night Massacre by President Nixon during the Watergate scandal. Nixon’s Attorney General Elliot Richardson had appointed Archibald Cox to be a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-in. During his investigation, Cox issued a subpoena to Nixon for taped White House conversations.
When Cox insisted on enforcing the subpoena (on a Friday night), Nixon (on the following Saturday) directed Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned instead. The President then directed the Deputy Attorney General, as acting Attorney General, to fire Cox, but he too refused and resigned. The President next contacted Solicitor General Robert Bork, the next successor as acting Attorney General, who agreed to fire Cox.
The resulting popular and Congressional disapproval of this action was a significant factor in the House’s bringing impeachment proceedings against Nixon and his eventual resignation.
There is no doubt that the President and Attorney General were within their rights in firing the U.S. Attorneys, just as Bork’s firing of Cox at Nixon’s direction was legally valid. However, because of the strong view among Congress, political commentators and the public that prosecutors should be insulated from partisan political pressures, there is significant political fallout from these valid and legally authorized actions.
The judiciary is supposed to be separate from the executive. Historically the U.S. Attys are left alone. After all the president and his people research them and offer them up for approval. Then they are left alone to do their jobs. They are removed for malfeasance or corruption but not political reasons. To claim the pres has the right to remove at will flies in the face of precedent and is dishonest.
That provision has been repealed.
LilShieste
True enough, but US Attorneys are not part of the judiciary. They work for the executive branch (the Department of Justice in particular.)
No, it doesn’t.
No, it isn’t.
Nina Totenberg just summed this situation up w/ a line from an old commercial ad; "“Who put eight great tomatoes in that itty-bitty can?”
Nobody will take responsibility for selecting the eight U.S. Attys to be replaced. Gonzales is tap dancing all around the question, but it remains very ambiguous.
The repeal has only been voted on in the Senate. It still needs to pass the House, and then avoid a veto by the President.
I don’t believe that definitive answers are possible here. A newly elected president surely has the perogative of replacing any or all appointed positions in the executive branch. Using that same perogative to selectively replace U.S. Attys. for the obvious purpose of furthering a political agenda, may not be illegal, but it’s certainly highly unethical and must be exposed to the voters for their evaluation.
Oops - I see that the House did, indeed, get around to this a week or so after the Senate. It’s still not law until signed by the President (though the vote margins were by far enough to override a veto if it comes to that).
I don’t think anybody would argue with that. I was objecting merely gonzomax’s statements about the nature of executive appointments.
Why? What particular “ethic” does it violate?
The President is empowered to hire and fire each of these people. The only check on the power is political. If he manages a big booboo, it affects him politically. There is no particular “ethic” involved. There MAY be political fallout over the concept that the attorneys in the Justice Dept. are expected to be non-political, and cannot be non-political if they are subject to mid-term “correction,” but that is not an issue of “ethics.”
It certainly has nothing to do with the voters, who were stupid(?)* enough to elect a president willing to do things like this in the first place.
*Stupid being a matter of viewpoint, of course… 
Are you honestly arguing that appointing or firing attorneys depending upon their willingness to selectivly prosecute cases based upon the political views of the defendents is not unethical?
Yes. Again, what “ethic” is it breaking? Define how it is unethical, instead of simply making an assertion without any supporting argument. 
The ethic that is violated (note the lack of quotes) is that of keeping partisanship out of the legal system. This is different from policy - it is normal politics for a president or attorney general to put greater priority on prosecution of certain types of cases - child pornography, for example, or securities fraud. It is not normal politics to put greater emphasis on prosecuting political opponents.
The Hatch act makes it illegal to use the federal government for partisan purposes. The head of the GSA was recently grilled by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for having a meeting of GSA employees in which they were briefed on Republican strategies for the congressional elections and then asked how they could help the Republicans in November. Wouldn’t partisan prosecution be at least as wrong?
Perhaps, as a lawyer, you have heard of the 14th amendment? The one regarding equal protection under the law? Yeah, that one. Encouraging federal employees to violate the Constitution seems unethical to me. But then, I’m no lawyer.
So, the president (or one of his subordinates acting on his authority) is free to interfere with any federal case? Isn’t that obstruction of justice?