by Andrew Zajac
Atty Gen. Alberto Gonzales has survived months of controversy over the Justice Department's dismissal of several federal prosecutors and dodged a no-confidence vote of the Senate, with members of the president's own party making the case for his removal.
Gonzales' response? Ratchet up the department's oversight of U.S. attorneys.
"At least once a year every United States attorney is going to sit down with either myself or the deputy attorney general, and we're going to have a very candid conversation about issues and problems in their districts," Gonzales says. "If I've heard of complaints from a member of Congress, it gives me an opportunity or the deputy attorney general an opportunity to tell the U.S. attorney what we're hearing."
Read more, from the Perspective section of today's Tribune:
POINTING THE WAY FOR PROSECUTORS
Under fire, not in retreat
Gonzales' plan for attorney reviews
would further politicize process
By Andrew Zajac
Washington Bureau
Atty Gen. Alberto Gonzales so far has survived a political crisis over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, a rare potential vote of no-confidence in the Senate and numerous calls for his resignation.
His response? Gonzales recently proposed tightening the leash on the men and women who prosecute federal crimes across the nation.
Gonzales described what he delicately calls "a more vigorous and a little bit more formal process" for annually evaluating prosecutors. What that means, as he explained it, is hauling in every U.S. attorney for a meeting to hear, among other things, politicians' beefs against the prosecutor.
If that should happen, expect the fair-mindedness and independence Americans still count on from their Justice Department to slip.
In testimony to Congress and comments at the National Press Club, Gonzales framed the meetings as a way of improving communications. But it also looks a lot like a way to remind recalcitrant U.S. attorneys what the home team expects.
On Friday, a spokesman for Gonzales insisted in a written statement that the attorney general has no intention of holding one-on-ones with every U.S. attorney.
"The view of the overwhelming majority of U.S. attorneys is that they do not want a new, formalized review process -- including one that might involve annual one-on-one meetings between each U.S. attorney and the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General. We have listened and agree with these views," the spokesman said.
But later Friday a senior Justice Department official said one-on-one meetings are still on the table. "We haven't ruled that out," the official said.
Here's what Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee last month about what he would do to avoid another uproar in the event he wants to fire more prosecutors:
"At least once a year every United States attorney is going to sit down with either myself or the deputy attorney general, and we're going to have a very candid conversation about issues and problems in their districts," Gonzales said. "If I've heard of complaints from a member of Congress, it gives me an opportunity or the deputy attorney general an opportunity to tell the U.S. attorney what we're hearing."
For an idea of the effect that "what we're hearing" can have, consider the case of former U.S. Atty. David Iglesias of New Mexico. Iglesias was fired after Republican Sen. Pete Domenici -- his one-time sponsor -- complained repeatedly to Gonzales and the White House that Iglesias was reluctant to prosecute vote fraud cases, a sensitive topic in a state George W. Bush lost by 366 votes in 2000.
Domenici also phoned Iglesias last fall and asked him if a certain high-profile Democrat was going to be indicted before the election, an inquiry Iglesias told lawmakers made him feel "leaned on."
Gonzales said he fired Iglesias based on "what I understood to be the consensus recommendation of the senior leadership in the department," but he offered no specifics -- except Domenici's complaints.
What, exactly, would a sit-down with the attorney general have been expected to yield in Iglesias' case?
Whatever Gonzales does to review prosecutors' performances will, by design, be murky, in the interests of maximizing executive power, the attorney general has indicated.
"If you have a more formal process, and a U.S. attorney gets a great evaluation, politically it may be more difficult for the president to make a change simply because he wants to make a change," Gonzales told the National Press Club on May 15. "A president should be able to do that."
Got that?
There's a "process" to tell prosecutors what they're doing wrong. But nothing that would impede dismissing them for any reason.
Of course, there's already an evaluation process run by the Justice Department's executive office for U.S. attorneys. But that only measures how well a prosecutor runs the office, not how loyal he or she is to the administration's agenda.
In truth, everyone in the game understands that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. But until now, presidents have tended to give prosecutors wide berths and have been exceedingly careful about firing them. They have understood that respect for prosecutors' authority hinges on the public's belief that they are independent actors, not marionettes.
Because of that traditional circumspection, U.S. attorneys have been replaced en masse only at the beginning of a new presidential administration. Once appointed and confirmed, they've rarely been fired and usually only for serious ethical or legal lapses. Such lapses were not alleged among the nine prosecutors sent packing last year.
Gonzales could have maintained the tradition of reserve by repudiating the firings as an overreach. Instead he apologized only for bungling them so badly that they've become a public issue.
Gonzales seems intent on making sure they're viewed as a precedent, a handy club for himself and future attorneys general to, depending on your viewpoint, either make sure prosecutors hew to the administration's priorities or make sure they factor political considerations in their deliberations.
But it would be naive to think this newfound flexibility would not also find uses in a Democratic administration. Then how eager would Republicans be to defend it?
• 
• 
• 
Comments
This clown needs to go. He is just one more in a long line of inept appointments made by an inept president.
He has the Midas touch alright...except everything turns to poo.
Posted by: bill r. | June 17, 2007 7:13 AM
Another turn of the hampster wheel that is the Dubya/Gonzo Justice Department.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 17, 2007 8:13 AM
Yez gots yer amateur hour.
Yez gots yer amateur night.
Then yez gots yer amateur perpetual motion machine. It's name is: "Bush Administration d/b/a Gonzales' Department of Justice."
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 17, 2007 8:30 AM
The phrase "serve at the pleasure of the president" reveals much about the people who use the phrase. Apparently the original phrase is "serve at the pleasure of the king" (Use the google to check) and pre-dates the Magna Carta.
The phrase implies that the king/president can make arbitrary decisions and not be questioned. Democracy does not work that way.
The administration has yet to provide one good explanation why the US attorneys were fired, in contrast to all the non-testimony and resignations. In the absence of a good explanation, one can only assume unethical, or worse, illegal acts have occured and Gonzales is announcing they will continue to occur.
Posted by: Degg2 | June 17, 2007 9:03 AM
I know this is off topic...
LONDON - Prime Minister Tony Blair committed British troops to Iraq even though he despaired at the failure of the United States to plan adequately for the aftermath of the invasion, a newspaper reported Sunday.
The Observer quoted Jeremy Greenstock, a former British envoy to Baghdad, as saying Blair "was tearing his hair over some of the deficiencies" in planning for the stabilization and reconstruction of the country.
How can you people continue to accept such a mistake? Don't you realize the mess we have gotten into? How can you accept such poor planning and defeat? This was no place for bumbling and we had the worst jokers in place to create such a mess. Don't give me the we must be victorious stuff...after you have finally reached the conclusion that we did not have enough boots on the ground, you turn around and say..Hey!..anoher 25k will do it. Incompetent isn't strong enough a word.
You are the ones who are unpatriotic.
Posted by: bill r. | June 17, 2007 10:56 AM
Ganzales seems determined to intimidate the U.S. Attorneys into being part of this corrupt administration. Hopefully, the Attorneys will resent this pressure and more of them will come forward with examples of improper political pressure on them that can be used as dung drops on this failed puppet.
Posted by: c. perry | June 17, 2007 11:14 AM
Bill R,
Greenstock wrote a book about it, but it was quashed by the UK government before publication. Must've hit a nerve.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | June 17, 2007 1:36 PM
What galls me is that ALL of the USA's the Bush Justice Dept fired were Republicans who had been hand-picked for the job. That they were fired for political reasons is proof enough that the Bush Administration went waaay beyond Republican years ago.
Gonzales should be impeached before he does any more damage.
Posted by: athena | June 17, 2007 2:17 PM
Alberto Gonzales is doing a good job and President Bush is doing a good job. You Democrats are mad because the President and the AG run the Justice Department and you want the hidden Clintonista holdovers to hold sway. Chuckie Schumer and our own Dickie Durbin yell and scream and try to turn America into a socialist nation run by a parliament calling for no confidence votes --instead of the Republic that it is under our constitution. If you hire a lawyer you give them marching orders and if they don't follow your instructions they are gone.Clinton and Reno fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys and Durbin and Schumer never uttered a peep and don't tell me it was at the beginning of his term. It doesn't matter. Lawyers are no better than anyone else they must please their bosses or they are gone period. Don't talk about how they have gotten by for years with a wide berth. They can't be loose cannons they work for the CEO of the Justice Department in this case a former Texas Supreme Court Justice Alberto Gonzales. Only Democrats could make the American people feel sorry for lawyers. When you work for the government you must follow orders. You people just want them working for Dem Jackasses. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | June 17, 2007 2:48 PM
bill r.,
Certainly you must recognize that Britain has absolutely no experience in these matters. What would they know about colonization, insurrection, foreign wars?
Why would W worry about what they think when he has such neonut geniuses as Wolfowitz and Perle to steer the ship? For a more comprehensive list of the architects behind perhaps our biggest foreign policy disaster ever, see this site:
http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/
Posted by: dt | June 17, 2007 4:55 PM
The difficulty is, this all will dissolve the faith of the American people in the institutions of government. If we get the idea that Dept. of Justice can't be trusted, or DoD can't be trusted, or Food and Drug can't be trusted, then what happens to the very idea of a government to perform its proper duties? This isn't a good thing.
Posted by: Dennis O'Neill | June 17, 2007 10:41 PM
I wish science could determine if a baby was to become a loony lib. Then, and only then, would I be for abortions, whether within the first weeks or a month before birth with a partial birth. Hey, I'm just thinking of ways to lessen mankind's damage to the planet and to make Earth a much better and happier place to live!
Posted by: John D | June 17, 2007 11:11 PM
Jerry White,
You forgot your usual rascist "monkeys out of trees" shot at Obama.
Please don't disappoint us like that.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 17, 2007 11:13 PM
Jerry White is still using the same tired argument that all other presidents have fired federal prosecutors, specifically President Clinton. Apparently after considering all points of view ranging from Sean Hannity to Rush Limbaugh, Mr. White thinks what is going is now in the Justice Dept is normal. It absolutely is NOT - firing this number of US attorneys in the middle of a term is unprecedented in both Democratic and Republican presidencies. Based upon his views, I would assume that he and the other 25% of the country who still desperately support this incompetent and corrupt president, would have had no problem if Bill Clinton had fired Janet Reno or the special prosecutors investigating his Administration. After all, they were just a bunch of lawyers serving at the pleasure of the president.
P.S. - Perhaps they should have been fired for performance since they did not get ONE conviction in eight years of continuous investigation.
Posted by: Bob W | June 17, 2007 11:38 PM
The last I checked, United States Senators are part of government as well. Why is it OK for Democratic senators to be questioning the performance of Attorney General Gonzales but not OK for Sen. Domenici to be questioning the performance of U.S. Attorney Iglesias? Voter fraud is a federal felony and Sen. Domenici has a right to be concerned about it since he represents the voters of the jurisdiction in which it is or may be happening. Democrats are demanding the same autocracy for line prosecutors that they would deny the president. Its just another case of "my politics are pure and holy, yours are corrupt."
Posted by: Mac | June 18, 2007 7:29 AM
Per this Jerry White of Springfield, Illinois, President Bush is doing a good job. Oh really. Did you hear that on Rush Limbaugh or Fox News?? Moron Bush's approval rating is below 30 percent. Smarmy Cheney's is less than 20 percent.
As far as AG Gonzales, he needs to be impeached, prosecuted, and sent to Gitmo.
Believe what you want to believe you clueless fool and leave those farm animals alone.
Posted by: Doug R. | June 18, 2007 9:06 AM
The last I checked, United States Senators are part of government as well. Why is it OK for Democratic senators to be questioning the performance of Attorney General Gonzales but not OK for Sen. Domenici to be questioning the performance of U.S. Attorney Iglesias? Voter fraud is a federal felony and Sen. Domenici has a right to be concerned about it since he represents the voters of the jurisdiction in which it is or may be happening. Democrats are demanding the same autocracy for line prosecutors that they would deny the president. Its just another case of "my politics are pure and holy, yours are corrupt."
Posted by: Mac | June 18, 2007 7:29 AM
Mac: If you really can't discern the distinctions on your own, then any explanation will go over your head, so it's pointles to respond.
Go watch the Price is Right or something else that doesn't tax your empty head too much.
Posted by: a blinkin | June 18, 2007 11:17 AM
I wish science could determine if a baby was to become a loony lib. Then, and only then, would I be for abortions, whether within the first weeks or a month before birth with a partial birth. Hey, I'm just thinking of ways to lessen mankind's damage to the planet and to make Earth a much better and happier place to live!
Posted by: John D | June 17, 2007 11:11 PM
John, I really hope that you are being sarcastic here. I find it hard to believe that you are a "Christian" as it is since you seem to be very unlike Christlike in your feelings toward so many people.
Posted by: Catherine | June 18, 2007 12:43 PM
Johnny D would rather kill Americans than kill Al Qaeda. Surprising.
Posted by: Janet | June 18, 2007 2:36 PM
Catherine, my dear, yes I am being sarcastic. I am doing my Ann Coulter impression by writing something completely over the top, but yet to make a point. And then I do find it interesting and even enjoyable to see some of the comments back such as Janet's.
Catherine, while you occasionally veer close to the Loony Left edge, you still have shown decency toward people like Tony Snow. And you're a new grandma to boot!! So, why would I wish you were aborted?? Now, Janet is another story!!!
Posted by: John D | June 18, 2007 3:32 PM
If your point is that you hate Americans more than you hate Al Qaeda, you've succeeded Johnny D.
Posted by: Janet | June 18, 2007 5:10 PM
Johnny D(oolittle):
At what point in your life do you stop corrupting God's gift to you of being able to read and write by personally attacking people who don't share your point of view?
A person who finds it "enjoyable" to have people attack him on a blog needs to find something to do that doesn't involve interfacing with humans.
Posted by: Big Gene | June 19, 2007 12:03 AM
Janet, I think you need to take some medication. Clearly, you are hysterical. My belief is that any member of Al Qaeda should be killed on the spot, no questions asked. For your ilk, shipping you to Venezuala or Sudan will do.
Posted by: John D | June 19, 2007 2:16 AM
[quote]
My belief is that any member of Al Qaeda should be killed on the spot, no questions asked.
Posted by: John D | June 19, 2007 2:16 AM
[/quote]
John, tell us how you can spot someone who is a member of al-Qaeda: what identifying traits do they exhibit? Do they walk around carrying a sandwich board announcing their terrorist affiliation? Do they wear a uniform of the al-Qaeda army? Do they perform al-Qaeda's secret handshake when meeting another terrorist in public?
Posted by: BC | June 19, 2007 10:08 AM
BC, afraid you might be fingered as an Al Qaeda operative?
Posted by: John D | June 19, 2007 11:29 AM