# Why is the Justice Department firing so many U.S. Attorneys? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2007, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607 "2007-01-19T19:25:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/1 "2007-01-19T19:25:30Z")
In recent weeks several U.S. Attorneys have been forced to resign by the Justice Department, for no clearly explained reason. [Dan Bogden,](http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5941216) appointed by Bush in 2001 to head up the USAO in Nevada, has proven highly effective in that post; he’s out. So is [Carol Lam](http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/13/news/top_stories/21_44_311_12_07.txt) (another Bush appointee) of the Southern District of California, and [Kevin Ryan](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011701057.html) of the Northern District. Attorney General Gonzalez [insists](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801880.html) the firings are because of “performance issues” and are not politically motivated. Senator Dianne Feinstein has [another theory:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011700501.html) > [@](#): > > The two [Lam and Ryan] are among 11 top federal prosecutors who have resigned or announced their resignations since an obscure provision in the USA Patriot Act reauthorization last year enabled the U.S. attorney general to appoint replacements without Senate confirmation. > > California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, complained on the Senate floor Tuesday that the White House is using the provision to oust Ryan, Lam and other federal prosecutors and replace them with Republican allies. > > “The Bush administration is pushing out U.S. attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy and then appointing indefinite replacements,” Feinstein said. Only – most of these USA’s were appointed by W in the first place, weren’t they? Why doesn’t the Admin trust in them any more? Why would they want to slip in replacements under the Senate radar? What’s going on here? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/2 "2007-01-19T20:37:55Z")
My own money is on “pre-emptive strike against Congressional investigations,” but I have no idea what role the federal prosecutors have in that. I’m just seriously peeved at the appointment of replacements without any sort of Congressional review. Didn’t the November elections tell the dunderheads in Washington that the people _want_ accountability? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/3 "2007-01-19T20:42:17Z")
[QUOTE=rjung] I’m just seriously peeved at the appointment of replacements without any sort of Congressional review. Didn’t the November elections tell the dunderheads in Washington that the people _want_ accountability? [/QUOTE] My WAG: Yes, it told them that. That is exactly why they’re doing this. In general terms, that is. The specific goals elude me. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/4 "2007-01-19T22:18:21Z")
WAG territory! My favorite! I go for half “Big Enchilada” and half “Shell Game”. (Note to puppy Dopers: “Big Enchilada” references a comment made by Nixon that he might be able to offer up John Mitchell (Atty. Gen.) to the circling investigators of Watergate, by convincing them they already _had_ the biggest fish they were going to net.) They would like to pretend that with Abramoff, Ney (R, Prison), and Cunningham (R, Other Prison) all rounded up and branded its all over, nothing more to see here, move along. They very much want to keep the “Samoan scandal” from breaking loose. I suspect (and cannot prove) that the WH is suggesting guidelines that emphasize “national security” issues and move corruption issues towards the backest of the burners. (If this is the first you’ve heard of the “Samoan scandal”, it oughtn’t be. Please inform yourself, if requested, I can offer sites with the proviso that I and my sites lean lefty, so you may require a “shields up!” approach. You’ll want to take your cynicism with as well, this one stinks like Hell at low tide.) Shoving in a unqualifed politcal hack is merely rotten-as-usual. I further suspect that several of those being re-deployed are decoys: they have no particular threat to the Powers That Won’t Be For Long, they were included to offer cover and confusion so that the real targets are obscured. And to offer substance to the claim that this is all “managerial”. Two bits says it blows over and away, there is too much major shit flying about for it to get the attention it deserves. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/5 "2007-01-19T22:23:56Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I suspect (and cannot prove) that the WH is suggesting guidelines that emphasize “national security” issues and move corruption issues towards the backest of the burners. [/QUOTE] But, why would they have expected resistance to that from the fired USA’s? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/6 "2007-01-19T22:36:51Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] (Note to puppy Dopers: “Big Enchilada” references a comment made by Nixon that he might be able to offer up John Mitchell (Atty. Gen.) to the circling investigators of Watergate, by convincing them they already _had_ the biggest fish they were going to net.) [/QUOTE] Nitpicky nitpick: FORMER Attorney General. Mitchell resigned from the Cabinet to serve as campaign director for the Committee to Re-elect the President, before the Watergate scandal existed. The famous Watergate break-in and arrests happened on June 19, 1972, with Richard Kleindienst at the helm of the Justice Department. Second nitpick: It was actually John Ehrlichman, not President Nixon, who used the phrase “the Big Enchilada,” during a conversation between Nixon, Haldeman, and himself on March 27, 1973. The President observes that even if Mitchell were granted immunity, he would not admit to perjuring himself. Haldeman points out that the investigators would never grant Mitchell immunity anyway, since he was such a prominent figure, as high a target as the investigation then reached. And at that point Ehrlichman chimes in, agreeing, “He’s [Mitchell is] the Big Enchilada.” Sorry. Back to the evil master plan to rid the world of US Attorneys, everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/7 "2007-01-19T22:58:23Z")
So, Bricker, aside from the nitpick, you don’t think there is anything fishy about a raft of firings of folks that have investigated Republican corruption and replacing them with, among other things, Karl Rove’s former opposition research assistant? I mean, you can scoff all you want at what you claim is paranoia, but at some point, don’t you yourself start to wonder if maybe enough is enough? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/8 "2007-01-19T22:59:38Z")
[QUOTE=rjung] My own money is on “pre-emptive strike against Congressional investigations,” but I have no idea what role the federal prosecutors have in that. [/quote] So, you “have no idea”, but you still want to bet on something. That makes sense… > [@](#): > > I’m just seriously peeved at the appointment of replacements without any sort of Congressional review. Didn’t the November elections tell the dunderheads in Washington that the people _want_ accountability? Why? Since it’s perfectly legal for Bush to this, what’s the big deal? Congress approved The Patriot Act, and by a considerable margin, IIRC. Perhaps your “peeveness” is misplaced and should be directed at the Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/9 "2007-01-19T23:11:27Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Congress approved The Patriot Act, and by a considerable margin, IIRC. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > the tweak was inserted during the conference committee, where lawmakers from the House and Senate reconcile discrepancies in the two versions and craft a final bill. [Did Specter Give WH Power to Replace Prosecutors?](http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002354.php) [Specter Admits Role in Expanding WH Powers](http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002357.php) > [@](#): > > Earlier we reported that Specter had been fingered for the last-minute change, made in a select Republicans-only meeting after the House and Senate had voted on earlier versions. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/10 "2007-01-19T23:29:10Z")
Is there anything left that’s not perfectly legal? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/11 "2007-01-19T23:54:07Z")
Have they been hunting with Cheney, yet? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/12 "2007-01-20T00:09:49Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] [Did Specter Give WH Power to Replace Prosecutors?](http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002354.php) [Specter Admits Role in Expanding WH Powers](http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002357.php) [/QUOTE] Your cite says he inserted it into the bill after the Senate and House voted. I don’t believe that’s possible. I think they meant committees. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/13 "2007-01-20T00:37:16Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] So, Bricker, aside from the nitpick, you don’t think there is anything fishy about a raft of firings of folks that have investigated Republican corruption and replacing them with, among other things, Karl Rove’s former opposition research assistant? I mean, you can scoff all you want at what you claim is paranoia, but at some point, don’t you yourself start to wonder if maybe enough is enough? [/QUOTE] I must have missed the posts in which the facts you allege above were established. How many AUSAs, overall, have been removed and what percentage of them were “investigating Republican corruption?” How many AUSAs who have investigated Republican corruption remain in their jobs? Make a real case, rather than some vague suppositions based on even vaguer event sequences, and I might begin to smell fish. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/14 "2007-01-20T00:58:38Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I must have missed the posts in which the facts you allege above were established. How many AUSAs, overall, have been removed and what percentage of them were “investigating Republican corruption?” How many AUSAs who have investigated Republican corruption remain in their jobs? [/QUOTE] I don’t have any inkling if it is because of “Republican corruption” but, **Bricker** , can you give me a figure of how many U.S. Attorneys are routinely fired in the 4-year term of the President who appoints them? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/15 "2007-01-20T00:58:46Z")
Suspicions are aroused by vague event sequences. You notice that Cock Robin is lying stiff on the ground beneath his usual perch. Further examination reveals he is transfixed by an arrow, laterally shish-kebobed. You suspect foul play, though you have no conclusive evidence… Myself, I am taken by oddity of it all, the purported necessity for USAs to be assigned outside of accepted procedures, and how that necessity came to be reflected in the Patriot Act. Why it was seen advisable to keep the matter so quiet as to suggest stealth. Little things. Details, really. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/16 "2007-01-20T01:10:16Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Your cite says he inserted it into the bill after the Senate and House voted. I don’t believe that’s possible. [/QUOTE] Sure it is: [Back-room dealing a Capitol trend GOP flexing its majority power](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/03/back_room_dealing_a_capitol_trend?pg=full) > [@](#): > > Congressional conference committees, charged with reconciling differences between House- and Senate-passed versions of the same legislation, have become dramatically more powerful in shaping bills. The panels, made up of a small group of lawmakers appointed by leaders in both parties, added a record 3,407 “pork barrel” projects to appropriations bills for this year’s federal budget, items that were never debated or voted on beforehand by the House and Senate and whose congressional patrons are kept secret. This compares to just 47 projects added in conference committee in 1994, the last year of Democratic control. > > Bills are increasingly crafted behind closed doors, and on two major pieces of legislation – the Medicare and energy bills – few Democrats were allowed into the critical conference committee meetings, sessions that historically have been bipartisan. The energy bill – a sweeping package meant to lay out a national energy policy – started in closed-door meetings held by Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force and was written in private sessions on Capitol Hill that excluded all Democrats. On the Medicare negotiations, only two Democrats – both already supportive of the bill – were included. Sometimes the inserts do get a quick vote, sometimes not, as [evidenced by this lawsuit](http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Kv1t15RNFl8J:www.citizen.org/documents/ACF1703.pdf+%22conference+committee%22+budget+lawsuit+unconstitutional&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a) over some of these conference committeee shenanagins: > [@](#): > > 1. On April 9, 2006, the civil action filing fee in the United States district courts will increase from $250 to $350. The fee increaseis the result of the Deficit Reduction Act of2005 (“the Act”), Pub. L. No. 109-171, § 10001, 120 Stat. 4, 183, which purports to amend 28 U.S.C. §1914(a), the statutoryprovision that states the amount of district court filing fees. > The version of the Act passed by the House, however, was not identical to the version passed bythe Senate and signed by the President. In this action, plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional and an injunction requiring the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to accept for filing civil complaints accompanied by payment of the $250 fee currently required under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), on the ground that the Act is invalid because it failed to comply with the Bicameral Clause of the United States Constitution, article 1, section 7 I’ve not followed the suit, but perhaps **Bricker** could tell us whether it has been crushed by the courts. Regardless, large voting margins are fairly irrelevent as indications of intent when legislators are inhibited from knowing exactly what they are voting on. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/17 "2007-01-20T01:43:49Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Only – most of these USA’s were appointed by W in the first place, weren’t they? Why doesn’t the Admin trust in them any more? Why would they want to slip in replacements under the Senate radar? What’s going on here? [/QUOTE] If the firings are indeed for nefarious purposes (a question on which I will, surprisingly, remain as skeptical as **Bricker** for the time being), the reason would be to appoint attorneys who would not receive Senate approval, for reasons of compentence or partisanship. My question is: is this the equivalent of a recess appointment? Can these appointees remain in office literally indefinitely? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/18 "2007-01-20T05:14:53Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] My question is: is this the equivalent of a recess appointment? Can these appointees remain in office literally indefinitely? [/QUOTE] It looks like the appropriate section of the bill says; > [@](#): > > Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection: > > `(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.’ The old rules said: > [@](#): > > (c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of— > (1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or > (2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section. > > (d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court. So, in other words, before the law, the AG could appoint a temporary US attorney to fill a vacancy for 120 days, then after that, the district court did. Now he can do it until the Senate confirms the permanent appointee. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/19 "2007-01-20T05:42:09Z")
There is more discussion and news relative to this over at Talking Points Memo [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/) To the issue of tenure: > [@](#): > > …Before they changed the statute, the President had no effective way to put a political stooge in as US Attorney for more than 4 months without buy-in from another branch of government (or a year at most via a recess appointment). But now he can, and putting the stooge up for confirmation is a no-lose proposition. If the Senate confirms, great. If they never give the nominee a hearing, they only prolong his tenure. And if they reject the nominee, he can still stay in office until a new nominee is appointed – which might never happen… Your correspondent is not in a position to verify, but has found Mr. Marshall a very reliable source… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607/20 "2007-01-20T14:17:35Z")
[QUOTE=samclem] I don’t have any inkling if it is because of “Republican corruption” but, **Bricker** , can you give me a figure of how many U.S. Attorneys are routinely fired in the 4-year term of the President who appoints them? [/QUOTE] Are we including Assistant US Attorneys? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-justice-department-firing-so-many-u-s-attorneys/388607.md?page=2)