Commenter WLS Defends an Administration That Can’t Be Bothered to Defend Itself
I said last night that I’m fed up with defending the Administration on the U.S. Attorney firings, given that the Administration can’t be bothered to defend itself, and repeatedly sabotages its own case. I’m purely in watchdog mode at this point — out to correct inaccuracies for the sake of the truth. But commenter WLS, a long-time Assistant U.S. Attorney, is still interested in defending the Administration. He has some good points, and I thought it might be useful to link and quote to a few of them, in the interest of promoting a better understanding of this controversy.
Here’s WLS on Iglesias being selected as a trainer in voter fraud issues:
The fact that Iglesias was a selected “instructor” on voter fraud training is also nearly meaningless. The District of New Mexico was one of only two districts at the time that had set up voter fraud task forces in coordination with the Civil Rights Division. When setting up training seminars for other districts on how to go about setting up such task forces, the Civil Rights Division picks “instructors” from districts that have already done so. That doesn’t mean Iglesias was an expert or particularly effective at actually prosecuting voter fraud cases — only that his district had actually gone through the mechanics of forming a task force. Pretty thin gruel.
When I objected that DoJ picked him, WLS responded:
[I]ts easy to say “DOJ picked him.” In actuality, the way these things work is that someone in the Civil Rights Division that works on voter fraud cases is given the task of working with the Office of Legal Education (OLE) to put together a 2-3 day seminar at the National Advocacy Center (NAC) in Columbia, South Carolina. That person at Civil Rights and a course administrator at the NAC then create a syllabus for the course, and they then select instructors for the course to match the topics in the syllabus.
Each time I’ve been picked to be an instructor on a particular topic where I have a recognized expertise, its always been because a friend that I’ve made along the way is involved in putting the course together and gives me a call to find out if I’d be interested.
There’s not a lot of merit to it — it’s all about whose Rolodex your name is in and who is picking the instructors. “DOJ” really has nothing to do with it.
Regarding Sampson’s characterization of Patrick Fitzgerald as a merely competent U.S. Attorney:
And, in response to Mary Jo White’s comments defending Patrick Fitzgerald from the criticisms of him in various documents now being released, I would only say that her comment is something of a non-sequitur.
Being the US Attorney and being an exceptional prosecutor are not one and the same. The US Attorney is first and foremost a manager. Exceptionally brilliant prosecutors can at the same time be terrible managers of a bureaucracy like a US Attorney’s Office. Fitzgerald runs the 3rd or 4th biggest office in DOJ — SDNY, CDCA, then either DC or NDIL.
The fact that he spends so much time actually prosecuting his own cases by implication means that he leaves the management and administration of his office to others — there are not enough hours in the day to do otherwise.
So, being a great prosecutor in the courtroom is not guarantee that he’s even a passably good US Attorney.
There are lots of materials about the reasons why some of the others were problem children as well. Apparently, McKay in WD Washington had a bad habit of publicly complaining in the press and to other agencies that his office was being crippled by budget cuts that forced him to cut staffing, and productivity would be impacted as a result. That’s not the kind of thing DOJ likes to see a US Attorney air in the local press. And it’s not just a comment or two — whole interviews and news articles are devoted to his complaining about his budget.
WLS adds in this comment:
McKay’s comments are particularly galling because he makes it sound like his office is the only one that has suffered a budget squeeze. I’ve been in DOJ long enough to have suffered through many of these budget squeezes, and many times the US Attorneys bring the problems on themselves by the way they allocate the use of the funds they have available.
Re the timing of Sampson’s email complaining about Lam being a “real problem” and its relationship to her notice to DOJ of the search warrants on Foggo, et al., DOJ has released new emails today — now being reported upon by the NYT and posted on the House Judiciary Comm website — that show longstanding DOJ extreme unhappiness with Lam. Of particular note is one from Bill Mercer, who served both as Acting Dep. AG before McNulty was named, while at the same time serving as US Attorney for Montana since the earliest days of the Bush Admin (in other words, a guy who has been around since the beginning and knows Lam’s entire history). He comments on her inability to meet deadlines, her disregard for DOJ and Admin. priorities, and makes a sarcastic reference to the possibility that maybe she would just admit that “I’ve ignored national priorities and obvious local needs. Shoot, my production is more hideous than I realized.’”
Now, it could be that everything WLS is saying is true. Indeed, I have no reason to doubt him. But that only reinforces my point about the Administration’s apparent unwillingness to defend itself. Why are we hearing these specifics from WLS and not from Tony Snow? The Administration appears content to dump these e-mails on the public and let us sort it all out. They appear not to realize that when they do that, without a plan, the press will just pick out the e-mails that make them look bad — and distort them in the process.
I haven’t read through all the newly released e-mails, but I read through the first set that was released. It was chock full of comments from Kyle Sampson about the need to have the political will to weather the storm that would result from the firings. But — and if I’m wrong, please correct me — I don’t remember seeing any hint of a comprehensive plan to explain to the public why they did what they did, and why it was the right thing to do.
The Administration appears to be getting caught flat-footed by apparent contradictions in its story, instead of being ready with answers, as wls is, to address them.
As I said, that makes it hard to defend them.
And after a while, one suspects that defending these folks is pointless. Because Gonzales is headed for the door anyway. A.J. Stata has a post criticizing Republicans for not defending Gonzales. Don’t you get it, A.J.? If you spend your time defending Gonzales, Bush will pull the rug out from under you, and make you feel like a fool for having defended him. Bush has caved on any number of issues before, and he’ll cave on this.
But A.J. may be more on target than he knows. His post is titled “Any Republican Who Caves On Gonzales Is A Lost Cause.” I suspect that description will very soon apply to President Bush.
UPDATE: I have corrected some typos, after WLS complained that I had failed to proofread and correct his language. I think people realize that they were just comments, WLS — but I have fixed the mistakes that I saw. Let me know if I missed anything major.
“Why are we hearing these specifics from WLS and not from Tony Snow?”
Bush always demurred to ‘trusted advisors’ and relied on them to do the research. When left to his own devices, the process is both unfamiliar and unpleasant. He would much rather delegate, but to whom, or what? His myth of decisiveness has been
semanticleo (75845c) — 3/20/2007 @ 6:56 amtrumped by the harsh reality of actually being involved in the process.
I’ve long been puzzled and bothered that Bush (and by extension, his Administration) is either too dense and/or dumb to realize that the Democrats and the media will jump at any and every opportunity to make him look bad or that he realizes this but is unable/unwilling to do anything to minimize the opportunities and to counter the distortions.
Does he not know the toll these attacks have had on his credibility and his ability to advance his priorities? Does he not know that the other side is more than willing to twist things in order to make him look as bad as possible? And does he not know that, in the absence of a spirited and coordinated defense of his actions and policies, the Democrats and their media allies are going to carry the day? Or, does he know all this and just can’t/won’t respond? Does he have some philosophical objection to standing up and defending himself? He doesn’t even seem to feel a need/obligation to stand by those who, like WLS, have stood by him.
From my armchair, he sure seems like someone who’s thrown in the towel and given up on the thought of accomplishing anything in the next 18 or so months (other than keeping our troops dying in Iraq and giving amnesty to the 12 million of so illegals in the country) and is otherwise just sitting around and waiting for his term to expire.
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 3/20/2007 @ 7:34 amThe Bush administration’s ineptitude in presenting its case, from the famous 16 words in the SotU Address to the US Attorney fracas reminds me of Casey Stengel’s plaint during his term as manager of the Mets. “Can’t anybody here play this game ?”
Mike K (416363) — 3/20/2007 @ 7:36 amBush could send Tony Snow out to announce the initiative to end war forever and give everyone free puppies and kittens, free health care forever, and 20 billion dollars, if he hasn’t done enough bowing, scraping, and bribing, the White House Press Corps and the wires are going to declare he’s a fascist imperialist warmonger money-stealing pig who hates old people, invalids, puppies, and kittens.
In addition, and probably a huge part of his problem, I believe he was indoctrinated, probably by his father, that “As the President, you are supposed to be nice and play fair and assume good intentions on the part of your domestic opponents and your so-called allies in the UN.”
Last, possibly least, I think he makes the same assumption I would, had I spent many years in a state where the divisions between Republican and Democrat didn’t used to be so huge and un-crossable and ‘uniting’ actually got an honest attempt from the other side: That the press, who keep telling us they’re only reporting the facts, shouldn’t require bribes and grovelling before, during, and after the fact just to report the FACTS without twisting.
Here, now, today, having seen what I’ve seen throughout his Presidency, I know better than to trust the Press to report things honestly, especially when they’re given all the information they need to make the conclusions that any honest person would make. Apparently Bush still hasn’t gotten around to learning that. Don’t know why, but there you go.
I wonder whether Bush has some aspect of Asperger’s Syndrome – the absolute lack of proper instincts (as opposed to pain-stakingly learned, quickly lost lessons) and complete inability to assume anything other than perfect ‘Good Faith’ when dealing with civil opposition would support it, but I don’t know that there’s sufficiently indicative symptoms.
Dave (391b76) — 3/20/2007 @ 8:54 amRegarding Iglesias and alleged voter fraud issues, there’s more to it still–not only did he have his office look into it, and start a task force on the issue, but he also had the FBI look into it, and they couldn’t find anything criminal either. I’d say that Iglesias did the right thing here, despite what his critics say, unless the goal is really just to charge people for alleged crimes that you know you can’t convict on–I’m glad he takes his job seriously enough to actually try to have a case first.
[I might share that view, if it weren’t for the fact that he reportedly tried to blame his inaction on lack of investigative resources. — P]
Biff (c3722c) — 3/20/2007 @ 9:05 amThe President, in my opinion, made the same mistake Carter did — surrounding himself with “good ole boy” loyalists regardless of their competence. Carter tried to micro-manage and failed because he also could not do the job they could not do. President Bush does not even seem to be doing that. In contrast, Reagan was very successful as a President because he had competent people to whom he could confidently delegate and depend upon to do their jobs. Not to disparage their loyalty but I think that to him it was secondary to their competence. I understand that he even had a Vice President with a brilliant resume who had run against him in the primary and had called his economic theories “voodoo economics”.
nk (cbd34d) — 3/20/2007 @ 9:14 amI think nk hit it right on. Delegation will fail if:
a) you don’t supervise those to whom the task is delegated, due to laziness or incompetence
b) the delegates are not highly-qualified individuals (as opposed to cronies)
c) the delegates are yes men that tell you what you want to hear instead of what you need to hear
Carter was rightly criticized for his micro-management (he supposedly drew up the White House tennis court schedule). Reagan was a successful delegator, particularly in his first term, because he avoided the pitfalls listed above. By comparison, Bush has routinely violated all three. Remember “Great job, Brownie”? He had no clue what the real story was or what his people were doing. Julie Myers in charge of border security? Harriet Myers for SCOTUS? All cronies, all yes men, all unsupervised by a lazy president.
Patrick is right, defending this administration is pointless and embarrassing.
Jeff C. (29f726) — 3/20/2007 @ 9:59 amI remember seeing a website recently that had an excellent, no-frills timeline of the entire U.S. attorney firing “scandal,” but I can’t seem to locate it now. Does anyone have a link to it?
NYC 2L (625631) — 3/20/2007 @ 10:34 am[…] Why are we not hearing such defenses come from administration officials themselves? Patterico, who – like me – has been defending the administration against the bogus allegations being thrown around by hyperventilating Democrats and their pals in the MSM, is frustrated, too: Now, it could be that everything WLS is saying is true. Indeed, I have no reason to doubt him. But that only reinforces my point about the Administration’s apparent unwillingness to defend itself. Why are we hearing these specifics from WLS and not from Tony Snow? The Administration appears content to dump these e-mails on the public and let us sort it all out. They appear not to realize that when they do that, without a plan, the press will just pick out the e-mails that make them look bad — and distort them in the process. […]
Sister Toldjah » Why are all the best defenses of the administration in Attorneygate … (1466f5) — 3/20/2007 @ 10:43 amThe Administration appears to be getting caught flat-footed by apparent contradictions in its story, instead of being ready with answers, as wls is, to address them.
I think they thought they could get away with firing the USA’s and not have to explain it. They clearly counted on those who were fired to keep quiet (which they did, for the most part) and the story would have likely died a quiet death (they were fired over three months ago), were it not for talkingpointsmemo. Heck, they might have even thought their “they serve at the pleasure of the president and clinton did it too” explanation would work.
Instead they’re now having to come up with post hoc explanations that likely aren’t true, while muttering Scooby Doo style about Josh Marshall – “and we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you scheming kids!” The only thing missing is AGAG whipping off his mask showing that he’s really – Richard Nixon.
Ugh (5df697) — 3/20/2007 @ 10:53 amI think wls would make a great presidential chief of staff, but he may not exactly desire the job. Thanks for the effort to give an explanation for some issues.
I don’t know if President Bush:
a) has been too gracious to his enemies, seeing attacks as personal rather than affecting his ability to govern as referred to above
b) surprised by the tone of politics and media in DC compared to Austin
c) is like a boxer who has been stunned and is back on his heels
d) or?
I was not following politics much when Reagan was president, but it seemed that he had a way of sort of “ignoring” criticism and he was able to ride above it (“There they go again.”). Perhaps Bush has tried to do that and it hasn’t worked for him , for a number of reasons.
It appears that his staff could not pull off a “dirty tricks” conspiracy if they tried.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/20/2007 @ 11:08 amUgh: but why should the Admin have thought they could get away with it? How often do high ranking Administration figures who get fired keep their mouths shut? How often do the lefties pass up an opportunity to portray Bush as corrupt, evil and/or stupid?
Even if they were hoping to get away with it, it would have been better (prudent, anyone?) for them to have their act and story together in case the story came to light…. something along the lines of “Hey guys, I’m just thinking out loud here, but do any of you think it might be a good idea to have our stories straight just in case any of the eight USAs we’re getting rid of don’t take the news so well?“. That Bush and his team didn’t do so is a testament to their combined stupidity and/or incompetence.
Ah, such is the pain suffered by Bush supporters… watching someone you like waste away, wasting one opportunity after another, doing nothing to help themselves, incapable of getting themselves back on their feet and unwilling to listen to friends who only mean well…
If Bush is determined to ruin his second term, we’re not going to be able to stop him. At some point, the only thing to do is shake our heads and walk away.
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 3/20/2007 @ 11:10 amUgh: but why should the Admin have thought they could get away with it? How often do high ranking Administration figures who get fired keep their mouths shut? How often do the lefties pass up an opportunity to portray Bush as corrupt, evil and/or stupid?
They almost did get away with it – look at Time’s washington bureau chief who essentially said “there’s nothing to see here” (click back through his links to his previous posts). The fired USA’s did keep silent for the most part – and when they didn’t they just said they were given no reason for their firing. Until the administration started to say they were fired “for cause.”
Even if they were hoping to get away with it, it would have been better (prudent, anyone?) for them to have their act and story together in case the story came to light
Sure, but it could be that they had just gotten lazy – counting on the one month lag between the firing and Dem takeover, the intervening Christmas/New Year’s holiday, and the “pleasure of the president” excuse. Maybe they thought this would fall through the cracks of all the other things the Dem congress was sure to look into/hold hearing (Iraq, Plame, NSA spying, etc.).
Ugh (5df697) — 3/20/2007 @ 11:32 amAm I missing a point, didn’t both House’s get their collective undies in a bundle about the separation of powers during the seizure of evidence in the Jefferson matter a criminal case. The fed’s wanted the evidence, asked and were put off for months (too busy to make a decision). Now they want evidence and there is no separation because it is political.
Kathy (df53e1) — 3/20/2007 @ 2:20 pmTrackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 03/20/2007
David M (8a40ef) — 3/20/2007 @ 2:22 pmA short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Patterico, my analysis is pretty simple. What does Bush care most about in subordinates, competence or loyalty? What is more likely to provoke him to fire a subordinate, incompetence or disloyalty? Of course Bush himself probably had little to do with this but an administration takes on the characteristics of the top man. So possibly the US attorneys were fired for incompetence but what are the odds?
And possibly you should drop the lawyer mindset and worry a bit more about who you are representing.
[It’s an analogy, not a mindset. In any event, I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here. — P]
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/20/2007 @ 2:28 pmI think DOJ and the WH were caught a little flat-footed in responding to the press and in Cong. testimony because these kinds of personnel moves inside a government agency are not generally news stories.
US Attorneys have always come and gone during an 8 year Presidential term, and some are even made to understand that they should go sooner rather than later. Look at the internal documents and emails that were generated here. Not only was it made clear to all US Attorneys that the DOJ/WH wasn’t going to suggest publicly they were “fired,” they were provided forms to work from that gave the appearance they were leaving voluntarily. That was for the benefit of the departing US Attorney’s reputation and ability to seek well-paying private employment.
I think the comments by Sampson about having the “political will” to go forward had nothing to do with anticipating a political fight in public waged by the Dems through the media. Instead, I think he was referring to having the political will to push back against behind-the-scenes efforts by the targeted US Attorneys and their political supporters in the House/Senate to save their jobs. A good example is the reaction that Sen. Ensign had when finding out that Bogden in Nevada was out. Ensign had picked him, Ensign wasn’t consulted in the decision to get rid of him, and Ensign was not happy with the decision. DOJ didn’t back down in the face of Ensign’s unhappiness, and I think that is all DOJ and the WH were anticipating in terms of needing to have the political will to stand by their decision. If they had relented to political pressure as to any one of the targeted 8, they would have had to give up on all of them, so what would be the point of even trying in the first place.
The unexpected wrench came when Lam went public in a San Diego newspaper, and Feinstein — who was critical of her for not prosecuting border crimes — threw red meat to the press by wondering if Lam’s removal had anything to do with the timing of the expansion of the Cunningham investigation.
Feinstein is a shrewd political operator — much smarter and much more saavy than Boxer. She knew it was a bogus claim, but it played right into the Dem strategy for this session of Cong. to emphasize investigating rather than legislating.
The reasons for dumping Lam were well known to Feinstein. In the transcript of Sen. Sessions questioning of AG Gonzalez about the removal of Lam, Sessions mentioned that he was aware that 14 California House members had written to DOJ to complain about Lam not aggressively prosecuting border crimes. FOURTEEN.
So, Feinstein knew that Lam was under fire from Congress — heck, she wroter her own letter to DOJ asking for an explanation about the decline of border prosecutions by Lam. Yet she throws out the bogus stinkbomb about the Cunningham investigation because she knows the press will eat it up, and there’ll be no price to pay for it being bogus.
wls (077d0d) — 3/20/2007 @ 2:41 pmThis problem has been there from the start of the Bush Administration. I think that Bush is too much a Christian. By that I don’t mean the usual trope that he’s a crazy right-wing anti-science ideologue. I mean he actually believes in turning the other cheek.
Going back at least to the Iraq invasion, and even to 9/11, there was no cost to making the most outlandish charges against Bush, Cheney et al because neither Bush, nor anyone close to him, nor the press, would respond with the appropriate level of outrage or contempt.
Consequently, the charges gradually moved up from the fringe to people with real power (to be sure, getting somewhat more vague at the same time), and the fringe was embraced by the powers-that-be (e.g., Michael Moore seated with J. Carter at the Dem convention).
So Enron (whose crimes dated to the previous Administration, and which loved Kyoto) became a Bush crime, Halliburton became the reason for “blood for oil,” and the 16 words meant “Bush lied, people died.” Now we have, e.g., Hillary’s Clintonian language — “He misled us into war” — because “lie” is itself a disproven lie, but the ground was well prepared by the previous, unresponded-to, charges.
DWPittelli (87ad39) — 3/20/2007 @ 3:44 pmI would like to thank Patterico for making me look like an illiterate idiot by leaving my typos in the comments that he re-posted onto his front page.
I am always in need of an proofer/editor when I type, and I can see now that Patterico cannot be depended upon to fulfill that function.
Thanks — for nothing. %^)
wls (077d0d) — 3/20/2007 @ 4:33 pmI agree with WLS. Bush is focused on his fight with Congress over Iraq and he probably wasn’t expecting a public fight over something every modern President has done. Plus, he’s a delegater and I’m confident this topic isn’t first on his list. I think the memos show that the staff expected and prepared for some backlash but not something this big. After all, who really cares about full employment for lawyers?
DRJ (53e939) — 3/20/2007 @ 4:35 pmWLS,
It’s an excellent post.
DRJ (53e939) — 3/20/2007 @ 4:39 pmI link to this on another thread here 6 hours ago, but I’ll post the whole thing now.
AF (f0c94f) — 3/20/2007 @ 4:54 pmPaul Kiel @ TPM Muckraker
Docs Show DoJ Brainstorm on Firing Justifications
But that only reinforces my point about the Administration’s apparent unwillingness to defend itself. Why are we hearing these specifics from WLS and not from Tony Snow? The Administration appears content to dump these e-mails on the public and let us sort it all out. They appear not to realize that when they do that, without a plan, the press will just pick out the e-mails that make them look bad — and distort them in the process.
It is my unqualified, non-professional, speculative opinion that the reason Ann Coulter’s bursts of inappropriate bile are tolerated and even celebrated among conservatives is because it is the closest thing to a vigorous defense of the GOP and the Bush Admin that is widely seen in the MSM.
I went on record at Free Republic in 2000 that I was disappointed Karl Rove had a role on the WH staff, because it’s my opinion that his bungling during the campaign almost cost Bush the election (see Lozano, Yvette). For years, I’ve fought against the Roveteers who laud him as an genius — IMHO, he’s a genius from the mold of Wile E. Coyote, who had things blow up in his face hundreds of times and refused to quit, too.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 3/20/2007 @ 4:55 pmI see they’re expanding the “Clinton did it too” defense as far back as it will go.
It’s worth noting that when Reno canned the 93 acting USAs at the beginning of Clinton’s term they were all allowed to finish their pending investigations. [It’s worth noting that you have no link for that, and I don’t believe it’s true. — P] Meanwhile, Bush has seen fit to fire the 8 USAs currently investigating such noted figures as Duke Cunningham, Dusty Foggo, and Jack Abramoff. They will not have the priviledge of continuing their investigations. [Who is currently investigating Duke Cunningham? Nobody. And what investigations have ended because of the firings? None. — P]
The difference between Clinton and Bush is the difference between executive priviledge and obstruction of justice.
It’s worth noting that Patrick Fitzgerald was on the list to get the axe as well. [It’s worth noting that you are 100% wrong on that. It’s worth noting that you are talking out of your ass. — P] Perhaps the Libby Investigation wasn’t pleasuring the President quite like it was supposed to.
Zifnab (6bceae) — 3/20/2007 @ 5:18 pmTime out for clarification. I’m confused (no wise comments invited).
First, when I said this:
My intended meaning, if it was not clear, is that I don’t think Bush has done any “Dirty Tricks” with the fired attorneys or with “PlameGate” or with “manipulating intelligence” before the Iraq invasion. My point was his administration stumbles into controversy where there is none, I don’t think they could hide something even if they really wanted to.
Second, to “Ugh”, who said:
and
If I’m not mistaken, a main point is they didn’t have to explain it, and there was nothing to “get away with”. They could have said the US Attorneys are part of the executive branch, they serve at the discretion of the President, and it has been decided a few changes needed to be made, and that’s that. When they tried to say more different people said different things, and a “Keystone Cops” of public relations was born.
Third, to wls who said:
We were two bsuy eppreciating the infermation to worry about any typos. We’re just happy when someone isn’t as sloppy as Sandy Berger so they can post information instead of it going into the washing machine with the socks.
And last, to DWPittelli, who posted:
I agree, and I agree that while it is honorable to do so in terms of personal slights, he has appropriate rationale to be aggressive in a response in order to fulfill his responsibilities as President.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/20/2007 @ 5:49 pmZifnab at 24 is ABSOLUTELY WRONG — the Bush 41 political appointees were given 48 hours to clean out their offices. The order to resign or be fired came down on a Wed., and they were all told to be out of their offices by COB on Friday.
Bush 43, on the other hand, allowed several Clinton political appointees to remain until replacements were chosen so they could wind up some matters they were involved in. Most famous was Mary Jo White in SDNY, who remained in place for several months after Bush 43 took office.
Zinfab’s post is disinformation of the most egregious kind.
wls (077d0d) — 3/20/2007 @ 6:18 pmPatterico — I hope you understood that my complaint about leaving in my typos was made in good fun.
[I did. — P]
wls (077d0d) — 3/20/2007 @ 6:30 pmDRJ at 20 and 21 — thank you for the kind words.
And, re whether this was on the Pres. radar or not — I strongly suspect he didn’t even know. There are thousands of Presidential “appointees” in the Exec. Branch. The US Attorneys are quite a ways down the chart in terms of Oval Office importance.
The desire to target these 8 US Attorneys seems to have come from within DOJ — the DAG’s office that is responsible for operating the department as a whole on a day-to-day basis, and for making sure the various components are functioning properly.
Once DOJ had their list, the WH would have to approve since the US Attorneys are Presidential Appointees, but unless one of the targets had strong political allies, I suspect the WH wouldn’t have real strong views either way — keep them or toss them.
wls (077d0d) — 3/20/2007 @ 6:35 pmwls,
You think Zifnab’s post is disinformation? Please. Not to put a fine a point on it, but I think the record (which you did not cite at all) disagrees with you–what about, for example, Michael Chertoff?
Biff (c3722c) — 3/20/2007 @ 6:43 pmThis is a problem that has plagued this administration from the day it took office. For all the complaints about White House spin, they do damned little of it. Mike K’s Stengel quote is apropos.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/20/2007 @ 7:06 pm16
Patterico, my point was you were seemed to be saying the problem with defending the Bush administration was their blundering explanations of their wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoing itself. Defense lawyers are expected to defend the innocence of clients they believe to be guilty. You are not under any such obligation and should not (in my opinion at least) be defending the administration here unless you are confident they have done nothing wrong. So it would make sense to say you are going to stop defending the adminstration because you are no longer confident that they did nothing wrong but in my view makes less sense to say (or seem to say) you are going to stop defending the administration because they can’t come up with convincing lies for you to stand behind.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/20/2007 @ 7:07 pmBiff — what about Chertoff?
Re Zinfab’s post — its disinformation because its factaully inaccurate for the purpose of intentionally misleading the reader:
1. Clinton allow ZERO Bush 41 US Attorneys to stay on, and no press reporting supports even claiming that Zinfab is unintetionally mistaken.
2. The 8 targeted US Attorneys were not all investigating GOP office holders or lobbyists. There were no reports of such investigations in Wash., Nevada, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico, or Arkansas. Ryan’s termination hasn’t generated much heat because it was pretty widely known in DOJ that the NDCA was an absolute trainwreck for the last 4 years.
3. Fitzgerald was never on any list to get axed. Fitzgerald was listed in 2005 among US Attorneys that had not particularly distinguished themselves in any fashion. That was the “middle” rating — not excelling, but not failing either. And, the rating was of Fitzgerald as the US Attorney for the N.D. of Ill., not Fitzgerald as the Special Prosecutor of the CIA Leak investigation.
So, Biff, you tell me — what part of Zinfab’s post was factually accurate and not intended to mislead?
wls (077d0d) — 3/20/2007 @ 7:11 pmPatterico, my point was you were seemed to be saying the problem with defending the Bush administration was their blundering explanations of their wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoing itself.
Well, that formulation expresses two unproved assumptions: 1) that the firings were examples of “wrongdoing,” and 2) that I think the blundering explanations can’t possibly be considered evidence of wrongdoing.
Defense lawyers are expected to defend the innocence of clients they believe to be guilty. You are not under any such obligation
Which, I thought, was a major point of my post.
and should not (in my opinion at least) be defending the administration here unless you are confident they have done nothing wrong.
Well, perhaps it’s a matter of semantics, but while I don’t consider myself to be in the game of “defending the administration” — because I don’t feel confident vouching for their trustworthiness on this issue, especially given Sampson’s stated intent to lie — I don’t feel that entitles Democrats and the media to say whatever untruths they like; to make any distortions they like; and to bury any inconvenient fact they like.
So I will continue to point out things that the media won’t tell you that support the Administration’s position, unless I think that those things are transparently not what the Administration was thinking. At this point I don’t know what they were thinking, and there is plenty of evidence, still emerging, that these USAs were a problem.
So it would make sense to say you are going to stop defending the adminstration because you are no longer confident that they did nothing wrong but in my view makes less sense to say (or seem to say) you are going to stop defending the administration because they can’t come up with convincing lies for you to stand behind.
Well, James, I didn’t say that, and never would. That’s a stupid set of words you just tried to put in my mouth.
Patterico (04465c) — 3/20/2007 @ 7:21 pmBiff at 29: Chertoff is the exception that proves the rule. He was the only one of the 93 USAs that Clinton did not immediately cashier upon taking office, and even that was only because of Sen. Bill Bradley’s (D-N.J.) urging Clinton to allow Chertoff to stay on.
NYC 2L (e16c0b) — 3/20/2007 @ 7:55 pmwls,
I’m sorry I had to explain this one to you. Your first point there is false–Clinton allowed Chertoff (then US attorney) to stay on. (Tune in next week to find out how Chertoff returned the favor!)
Biff (c3722c) — 3/20/2007 @ 7:56 pmBut really, Bush 43’s conduct at the beginning of his administration wasn’t much different. The part that’s *very* different is the part where Bush later runs out *his own* USA’s. (not to mention the bit about slipping in that provision to entirely avoid advise and consent–that’s what really pissed the Senate off)
Biff (c3722c) — 3/20/2007 @ 7:59 pmTo quote Jim Taranto, it seems like you’re making the following points:
1. It was OK for Bill Clinton to fire 93 U.S. attorneys . . . But it was not OK for Bush to fire eight of them.
2. Firing U.S. attorneys of the opposite party is fine, but firing U.S. attorneys of your own party is evidence of “politicization.”
NYC 2L (e16c0b) — 3/20/2007 @ 8:02 pmNYC 2L,
1. Not making that point at all–it was ok for Clinton to get his team in at the beginning of his administration, as it was ok for Bush 43 to do the same.
2. I also think it was ok for Clinton to subsequently get rid of two of his own USA’s early due to malfeasance (read the CRS report)–and I’d support Bush if he did that as well, but he didn’t–he did something rather different.
Bottom line: the facts of the case always matter–the devil is in the details.
Biff (c3722c) — 3/20/2007 @ 8:23 pmbiff # 35
Frankly, I wasn’t aware that Clinton/Reno had allowed Chertoff to remain. So, from here on I’ll make sure and note that they canned only 92 of the 93.
But, just so there is no confusion about he circumstances, here is a NYT article on the issue from April 1993. It makes points that are worth noting:
1. Chertoff was originally slated to be fired along with the other 92.
2. Chertoff was in the middle of his 4 year term, having only been appointed in 1991 — but this wasn’t uncommon since Bush 41 was a one-term president.
3. Most importantly, New Jersy DEMOCRAT Senators Bradley and Lautenburg both intervened on Chertoff’s behalf, and asked Reno to allow him to remain until the end of 1993. Since its accepted that its the perogative of the home state Senators of the President’s party to pick US Attorney nominees, the fact that both home state Democrat Senators wanted Chertoff to remain was the only reason he wasn’t fired along with the other 92. That’s a pretty anomalous situation, and I don’t think it establishes any point of significance in the debate.
wls (077d0d) — 3/20/2007 @ 9:12 pmI can’t get the NYT link to copy into this post, but if you Google “chertoff us attorney new jersey clinton” it comes up as the sixth article in the string.
wls (077d0d) — 3/20/2007 @ 9:15 pmwls,
That’s fine, thank you for the reference. We can disagree on how much it matters–as I’ve mentioned, I think that whole non-issue is quite overblown, but there’s no need to puff it up to make it look worse than it is, as was often done both then and now.
Incidentally, there’s one side-issue I am somewhat interested in, and maybe you’d know something about it: the traditional role of Senators (or others) in selecting or vetting potential US attorney nominations. I now know (from the recent document dumps) that the current administration consults–at best–Republican state senators, or–when none can be found–other Republican officials or even outside operatives. But was it ever thus?
Biff (c3722c) — 3/20/2007 @ 9:30 pmBiff — sorry for the delay in responding to 41.
The tradition is pretty well established in stone — the Senators won’t give it up.
When the home state Senator is of the same party as the Pres., the home state Senator almost ALWAYS picks the nominee. Sometimes the Pres. will want a campaign contributor or political operation that was particularly important to the election effort to get the post, and he’ll usually trade the home state Senator some other appointment. On Judges, the home state Senators have great influence but they don’t get to make the appointment alone.
The reason it has developed like this over time is because of the Senate “blue slip” tradition. Amongst themselves Senators have adopted the “blue slip” practice that basically kills a nomination if the home state Senator of a nominee fails to return a “blue slip” approval to the Committee chair considering the nomination. The “blue slip” holds no formal authority beyond the tradition of comity among Senators to respect the wishes of their fellow Senators with respect to political appointees in their home states.
The failure of a home state senator from the opposition party to return a blue slip approval has never been fatal, and the Committee chairman can proceed without it — though they sometimes urge the WH to consult with that Senator and trade him/her something for the return of the blue slip so the tradition can be honored.
But, the failure of a home state Senator of the same party as the President to return a blue slip on a Presidential nominee is pretty much fatal to that nomination. Thus, the basis for the home state Senator’s power to determine who is nominated.
The the absence of a home state Senator from the President’s party, a governor of the President’s party in that state will have great influence. Same for any particularly powerful member of the House.
In the absence of any such individual — for example, the selection of the US Attorney for a very Democratic state like Vermont, the Pres. will rely on the head of his election committee in that State or the head of the state’s GOP to suggest possible nominees.
WLS (9cb52b) — 3/20/2007 @ 11:27 pmIglesias throws a little fuel on the fire:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Not a lot of new info, but he does go into the voter fraud a bit and not in a way that benefits the Administration. I’d say it reads like he’s more than a bit pissed.
wls – You’ve noted a few times that Ryan’s San Francisco office was a bit of a disaster, but I seem to recall that he was initially on Sampson’s early list of “good”, “loyal” USA’s? Do you have any more info on this?
Bob Loblaw (a9fb99) — 3/21/2007 @ 12:09 amwls,
Thank you, that whole blue slip tradition is fascinating.
Biff (c3722c) — 3/21/2007 @ 6:16 amBob Loblaw — 43
Ryan came into an office that had a long history of dysfunction — principally because the NDCA is located in some of the most liberal anti-government real estate in the country. The judiciary is unfriendly to law enforcement, and the population is unfriendly to law enforcement.
The US Attorneys appointed by Clinton were disasters, until the arrival of Big Bob Mueller. He was quite a choice given the fact that he had been the US Attorney in Boston under the Reagan Admin., and the Assis. AG over the Criminal Division under the Bush 41 Admin.
But he was friendly with Eric Holder, the Dep. AG, from when Holder used to work for him. Mueller went to work for Holder in 1995 (?) while Holder was the US Attorney for DC, after Mueller decided he didn’t like private practice. After a couple years of prosecuting homicides under Holder, and after Holder was named Dep. AG, Holder thought Mueller was the kind of leader who could begin to put the NDCA back together after years of horrendous leadership and performance. Feinstein and Boxer interviewed him, perceived him as more of a career prosecutor than a partisan Republican — correctly on their part — and agreed that he had the discipline and leadership to begin pulling the NDCA out of the abyss.
The funniest thing about Mueller’s time in San Fran. as US Attorney is that after being there for a week, he sent out an E-Mail that went to every Dept. of Justice attorney in the country, soliciting applications for the 14 supervisory positions in the NDCA — basically he canned every supervisor that was in the office and opened the spots up to anyone who wanted to apply.
After the 2000 election, Mueller was brought to DC to supervise DOJ during the transition between Clinton and Bush 43. After Reno resigned but before Ashcroft was confirmed, Holder was the acting AG, and Mueller was the acting Dep. AG. When Louis Freeh decided to resign as FBI Director, Mueller’s name surfaced as a candidate for that job.
Which gets me back to Kevin Ryan.
Mueller had a very positive influence in the NDCA. He cleared out a lot of the ineffectual management that had plagued that office, and brought in some new and younger talent. About 18 months passed between Mueller’s departure for DC and Ryan’s ultimate appointment as US Attorney.
Ryan inherited an office that was running pretty smoothly, but Ryan had ZERO federal prosecutorial experience. He was a long-time state prosecutor, and had been a state court judge for a few years before he was nominated. His family is very active in Rep. politics in San Fran., and it was widely believed at the time that Ryan was taking the US Attorney’s job only for the purpose of enhancing his resume on the way to a federal judicial nomination in San Fran.
A couple things happened just prior to him taking the job, and just after. First, Mueller enticed several of the top attorneys in the office to come to DC and join either DOJ or the FBI Legal Counsel’s Office.
Second, Ryan brought in another outsider with no federal experience to be his No.2 — now you had two guys than nobody knew and with no experience trying to run a federal prosecutors office with about 150 prosecutors.
It wasn’t long before Ryan was changing supervisors, and then the grumbling started. Ryan grew insular, and had only a limited contact with the line prosecutors that were working for him. His No.2 was not well liked, and pretty much had the reputation as a hatchet-man.
It wasn’t long before Ryan’s aspirations of being a federal judge were in the dumpster, and the morale in the office went right back to where it had been before Mueller cleaned it up.
If you go to document release 1-4 in on the House Judiciary website, there’s a very long article there from a Bay Area weekly that described the Office Performance Evaluation (called EARS) done of the NDCA in 2005 (I think). It starts out with the following sentence:
“Kevin Ryan must have felt like he had been invited to his own stoning.”
And it gets worse from there.
wls (077d0d) — 3/21/2007 @ 10:51 amYes, fascinating.
AF (f0c94f) — 3/21/2007 @ 11:06 amwls @ 45
Bob Loblaw (a9fb99) — 3/22/2007 @ 10:45 amThanks much for the info – you provide some great background and insight on the inner workings.
[…] Patrick Frey (aka “Patterico”): “I Use Titles That Are Too Freaking Long, So I’ll Have To Suffice With Links From ASHC All in One Made-Up Quote“ […]
A Second Hand Conjecture » Attorney-Gate II (f55714) — 3/22/2007 @ 8:31 pm