Saturday, May 19, 2007
Role of the Attorney General in the Unitary Executive
Advisors to President Bush argue in favor of the “unitary executive” as the model for the American Presidency. There is some support in the federal constitution for such an interpretation. In contrast to a typical State constitution (e.g., the California State Constitution) the federal constitution gives the President the power to choose the various heads of Departments. In particular the Attorney General is chosen by the President. In California and most other States, the Attorney General is elected. The Attorney General of a State is not necessarily a member of the same Party as the Governor. We have an example today in California, with Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor and Democrat Jerry Brown, a former governor, as Attorney General.
Until the emergence of a possible scandal in the Bush Administration’s firing of several US attorneys, perhaps for political gain, I looked askance at States in which many of the heads of government departments were elected instead of appointed. Why shouldn’t States be more like our central government? Why, in California, should the Treasurer, the Controller, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and other officials be elected rather than appointed by the Governor?
Now, I know. A few weeks ago some pundit on television pointed out that the Attorney General of the United States is supposed to work for the American People and not for the political advisors to the President. I have learned that many career lawyers in the Department of Justice have resigned since the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General. It is reported (I can’t cite any references) that morale among the remaining career lawyers is low, due to the feeling that the department is being politicized and that the path to job safety lies in pleasing the political consultants of Mr. Bush rather than in impartial pursuit of justice. Gonzales apparently feels that his primary obligation is to George W. Bush rather than to the American People.
This is a situation up with which we should not put. Absent any change in the present procedure for choosing and confirming Attorney Generals, the Senate must be much more skeptical of Presidential nominees for the position. The Justice Department must not become a fruitful target for political appointees. The President’s personal political philosophy must not be imposed on the non-political career lawyers of the Department.
A desirable change would be to make the office of Attorney General non-partisan and permanent, like the director of the FBI. Because of the special nature of the Department of Justice, the leader should not be changed to suit the philosophical bent of a new Administration.
Until the emergence of a possible scandal in the Bush Administration’s firing of several US attorneys, perhaps for political gain, I looked askance at States in which many of the heads of government departments were elected instead of appointed. Why shouldn’t States be more like our central government? Why, in California, should the Treasurer, the Controller, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and other officials be elected rather than appointed by the Governor?
Now, I know. A few weeks ago some pundit on television pointed out that the Attorney General of the United States is supposed to work for the American People and not for the political advisors to the President. I have learned that many career lawyers in the Department of Justice have resigned since the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General. It is reported (I can’t cite any references) that morale among the remaining career lawyers is low, due to the feeling that the department is being politicized and that the path to job safety lies in pleasing the political consultants of Mr. Bush rather than in impartial pursuit of justice. Gonzales apparently feels that his primary obligation is to George W. Bush rather than to the American People.
This is a situation up with which we should not put. Absent any change in the present procedure for choosing and confirming Attorney Generals, the Senate must be much more skeptical of Presidential nominees for the position. The Justice Department must not become a fruitful target for political appointees. The President’s personal political philosophy must not be imposed on the non-political career lawyers of the Department.
A desirable change would be to make the office of Attorney General non-partisan and permanent, like the director of the FBI. Because of the special nature of the Department of Justice, the leader should not be changed to suit the philosophical bent of a new Administration.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Arnold Schwarzenegger, attorney general, career lawyers, firing US Attorneys, Jerry Brown, unitary executive
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A Difference of Opinion
The other day my Conservative friend H sent me an e-mail which contained the following:
It makes me wonder. Do Conservatives, like my friend H, live in a different universe? Is their mode of thinking so different from mine that we could see the same event and yet have such different conclusions? Am I demented or are they?
I can think of one possible, but extremely unlikely, explanation that preserves sanity for both H and myself: H watched the hearings on Fox News. I’ve rarely watched Fox News. It’s on cable, which I do not have at home. Occasionally at the gym I see a bit of Fox News on the TV sets that are placed in the exercise rooms. I was not in the gym the day Arlen Specter, Pat Leahy, Edward Kennedy, Lindsey Graham, and others skewered Alberto Gonzales and suggested that he would be doing the Department of Justice and the President a big favor if he would simply resign and go away. I don’t know how even Fox News could have slanted the coverage of the hearings in such a way that one could think that “…the AG did OK….”
In my e-mail to H I stated that Gonzales was in an impossible predicament. The question was, why were eight capable US Attorneys sacked and how much did you have to do with firing them? He couldn’t give answers to any part of the question. He couldn’t invoke the Fifth Amendment. All he could do was to insist that he couldn’t remember. The firings were not illegal; the President has the right to fire them at will. The question was why, not was it legal. In press conferences Mr. Gonzales had given several different and conflicting explanations of the firing. Both Democratic and Republican Senators sensed that Mr. Gonzales was hiding something; something so embarrassing to the President that Mr. Gonzales would rather play the fool than tell the truth. As far as I could tell from what I heard of the hearings, Mr. Gonzales’s only friend and defender among the Senators was Orrin Hatch.
I noted that after the hearings the left-leaning blogs were full of comments about Alberto Gonzales and explanations for his behavior in the Senate hearings. The right wing blogs (or at least the one I looked at) were silent about Gonzales. They were full of criticism of NBC television for airing the material that had been mailed to them by the Virginia Tech assassin.
I have TiVo and I recorded Gonzales's hearing which I watched this morning at breakfast. About the time it was over Jeanne brought me the LA Times. So I had the chance to see it and then read about it. I thought the AG did OK but that was not how the Times article came out.I wrote H an e-mail in which I commented that he and I saw things very differently. In fact, I wonder whether we saw or heard the same event. I also read the Los Angeles Times. The assessment of Gonzales’s performance in the Times agreed with what I had heard on radio and later seen on TV.
It makes me wonder. Do Conservatives, like my friend H, live in a different universe? Is their mode of thinking so different from mine that we could see the same event and yet have such different conclusions? Am I demented or are they?
I can think of one possible, but extremely unlikely, explanation that preserves sanity for both H and myself: H watched the hearings on Fox News. I’ve rarely watched Fox News. It’s on cable, which I do not have at home. Occasionally at the gym I see a bit of Fox News on the TV sets that are placed in the exercise rooms. I was not in the gym the day Arlen Specter, Pat Leahy, Edward Kennedy, Lindsey Graham, and others skewered Alberto Gonzales and suggested that he would be doing the Department of Justice and the President a big favor if he would simply resign and go away. I don’t know how even Fox News could have slanted the coverage of the hearings in such a way that one could think that “…the AG did OK….”
In my e-mail to H I stated that Gonzales was in an impossible predicament. The question was, why were eight capable US Attorneys sacked and how much did you have to do with firing them? He couldn’t give answers to any part of the question. He couldn’t invoke the Fifth Amendment. All he could do was to insist that he couldn’t remember. The firings were not illegal; the President has the right to fire them at will. The question was why, not was it legal. In press conferences Mr. Gonzales had given several different and conflicting explanations of the firing. Both Democratic and Republican Senators sensed that Mr. Gonzales was hiding something; something so embarrassing to the President that Mr. Gonzales would rather play the fool than tell the truth. As far as I could tell from what I heard of the hearings, Mr. Gonzales’s only friend and defender among the Senators was Orrin Hatch.
I noted that after the hearings the left-leaning blogs were full of comments about Alberto Gonzales and explanations for his behavior in the Senate hearings. The right wing blogs (or at least the one I looked at) were silent about Gonzales. They were full of criticism of NBC television for airing the material that had been mailed to them by the Virginia Tech assassin.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Conservative reaction to Gonzales's performance, firing US Attorneys, Fox News, Senate Hearings
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Was it Legal? Was it Wise?
A large amount of paper and ink have been used up in the commentaries on the affair of the sacked attorneys. Critics of the Bush administration, myself included, suspect a very crass, sleazy motive was behind the firing of the eight US Attorneys. We suspect, for example, that Carol Lam was sacked to save Congressman Jerry Lewis, who was in her sights to be indicted for corruption. We suspect that David Iglesias of Albuquerque was let go because he was slow about prosecuting suspected Democratic activists for voter fraud. We know that the US Attorney in Little Rock was relieved of his job to make room for a protege of Karl Rove.
Today Professor Douglas Kmiec weighs in with an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times to defend Mr. Gonzales and the President. Professor Kmiec argues correctly that the President has and should have the right to discharge any US Attorney who, in the President's judgment, is not enthusiastically carrying out the President's policy regarding the enforcement of the law.
Professor Kmiec is trying to change the subject. The subject is, or should be, did the President and Mr. Gonzales exercise good judgment in firing the attorneys? Were they clear as to the reasons for the firings? What about the timing? Were they prepared to give convincing and honest answers to the charges by critics that the firings were done to achieve some sleazy, underhanded political advantage and not to improve the enforcement of the law?
Let me put aside for the moment my own suspicion that the replacement of the eight attorneys was done for some partisan political motive. Even if we assume good faith by the Administration, both the timing and the lame excuses put forth by the Justice Department and the White House indicate to me that neither Mr. Gonzales nor Mr. Bush were paying close attention to what was going on. Neither one of them was able to foresee the chorus of criticism that followed the sudden discharge of eight US Attorneys all at once. Could they not see that firing Carol Lam after she had successfully put one Republican Congressman in prison and was about to go after another Republican Congressman would look like partisan pay-back and not like an attempt to improve the process of enforcing the laws fairly and effectively? Could they not see that firing Mr. Yglesias after he had been pressured by a US Senator and a US Representative to speed up the indictments of some Democratic activists for Republican electoral advantage would smack of political sleaze?
No one denies that the President has the authority under law to fire US Attorneys. My concern is whether the President used good judgment in choosing which attorneys to fire and when to fire them. On the surface, the affair was either something that was justified but carried out very badly or something that was done for a very unfair partisan political advantage. In either case, it looks as though the President and his advisors ignored the obvious criticism that would arise. Perhaps they believed that no one would pay any attention to the firings. I can't make up my mind as to whether the President was stupid or venal. What do you think?
Today Professor Douglas Kmiec weighs in with an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times to defend Mr. Gonzales and the President. Professor Kmiec argues correctly that the President has and should have the right to discharge any US Attorney who, in the President's judgment, is not enthusiastically carrying out the President's policy regarding the enforcement of the law.
Professor Kmiec is trying to change the subject. The subject is, or should be, did the President and Mr. Gonzales exercise good judgment in firing the attorneys? Were they clear as to the reasons for the firings? What about the timing? Were they prepared to give convincing and honest answers to the charges by critics that the firings were done to achieve some sleazy, underhanded political advantage and not to improve the enforcement of the law?
Let me put aside for the moment my own suspicion that the replacement of the eight attorneys was done for some partisan political motive. Even if we assume good faith by the Administration, both the timing and the lame excuses put forth by the Justice Department and the White House indicate to me that neither Mr. Gonzales nor Mr. Bush were paying close attention to what was going on. Neither one of them was able to foresee the chorus of criticism that followed the sudden discharge of eight US Attorneys all at once. Could they not see that firing Carol Lam after she had successfully put one Republican Congressman in prison and was about to go after another Republican Congressman would look like partisan pay-back and not like an attempt to improve the process of enforcing the laws fairly and effectively? Could they not see that firing Mr. Yglesias after he had been pressured by a US Senator and a US Representative to speed up the indictments of some Democratic activists for Republican electoral advantage would smack of political sleaze?
No one denies that the President has the authority under law to fire US Attorneys. My concern is whether the President used good judgment in choosing which attorneys to fire and when to fire them. On the surface, the affair was either something that was justified but carried out very badly or something that was done for a very unfair partisan political advantage. In either case, it looks as though the President and his advisors ignored the obvious criticism that would arise. Perhaps they believed that no one would pay any attention to the firings. I can't make up my mind as to whether the President was stupid or venal. What do you think?
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Carol Lam, Douglas Kmiec, firing US Attorneys, Karl Rove, Yglesias
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Liars and Non-believers
Poor Alberto Gonzales! He's told so many different stories about the firings of the eight US Attorneys that it can not be true that he hasn't lied at least once. The President has ordered him to fix things with the Congress. If he can't, he'll get a commendation or perhaps even a medal along with a pink slip.
The Administration is trying to get the story straight about Carol Lam. She was the US Attorney for San Diego. The Administation is trying desperately to get the public and Congress to believe that she was let go because she wasn't aggressive enough in prosecuting illegal immigrants. The timing of her release was awful. She had just completed a successful prosecution of one crooked Republican Congressman and was starting to go after another. No one except a true believer in the Bush doctrine believes that she was let go just because she wasn't tough enough on illegal immigrants. It is so obvious to the skeptics that she was fired as an act of desperation to protect the other Congressman.
The Administration might have been able to pull off the replacement of the eight attorneys if it hadn't used up its credibility in making up excuses for starting the Iraq War. I am fond of recalling a little German poem I learned once:
Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht
Und wenn er auch die Wahrheit spricht.
Rough translation:
Whoever tells a lie, they won't belive him
Not even when he tells the truth.
The Administration is trying to get the story straight about Carol Lam. She was the US Attorney for San Diego. The Administation is trying desperately to get the public and Congress to believe that she was let go because she wasn't aggressive enough in prosecuting illegal immigrants. The timing of her release was awful. She had just completed a successful prosecution of one crooked Republican Congressman and was starting to go after another. No one except a true believer in the Bush doctrine believes that she was let go just because she wasn't tough enough on illegal immigrants. It is so obvious to the skeptics that she was fired as an act of desperation to protect the other Congressman.
The Administration might have been able to pull off the replacement of the eight attorneys if it hadn't used up its credibility in making up excuses for starting the Iraq War. I am fond of recalling a little German poem I learned once:
Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht
Und wenn er auch die Wahrheit spricht.
Rough translation:
Whoever tells a lie, they won't belive him
Not even when he tells the truth.
Labels: Administration's credibility, Alberto Gonzales, firing US Attorneys, motive for firings
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Poor George!
Pity George W. Bush. He can’t seem to get away with anything. Lately he tried to replace a few federal district attorneys – attorneys he had appointed at the beginning of his term of office – with others who were more enthusiastic about carrying out the Bush Agenda. The Bush Agenda starts with the need to increase Republican support for Bush in Congress. One of the replaced attorneys had convicted one California Republican Congressman of taking bribes and had sent him to do time in prison. This attorney was about to go after another corrupt California Republican Congressman. Just in time, she was replaced by someone more loyal to Bush and his Agenda. Other federal district attorneys – there were eight in all who were replaced – were let go for similar reasons. One was replaced by a protégé of Karl Rove. Another was replaced for standing up to Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, who wanted to know when indictments against some Democratic political operatives were to be unsealed, and please, could it be before the election last November? As a matter of law, the President has the power to hire and fire federal district attorneys. (The hiring has to be approved by the Senate.)
Also, as a matter of law, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. He can order them to go anywhere in the world. He can order them to attack a presumed enemy of the United States. The President’s father, former President George H. W. Bush, had sent American forces to attack Iraq to free the Emirate of Kuwait from Iraq occupation. Father Bush had an army of half a million men in his enterprise, including support from many nations. Several Arab nations supported Father Bush’s war to free Kuwait. Father Bush was criticized for stopping at the border between Kuwait and Iraq. The critics said he should have continued the advance, after defeating the Iraq Army, all the way to Baghdad. There he should have removed Saddam Hussein from power and replaced him with a ruler friendly to the United States and its interests.
Son George resolved to complete the unfinished work of the father. He used intelligence of dubious quality to persuade Congress to give him the authority to use force against Iraq. He then assembled an army of about one-third the size of his father’s army and a coalition with fewer members than his father’s and proceeded to invade Iraq. His advisors convinced him that the attack would be over in short order. The coalition forces would occupy Baghdad, depose Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government, and depart. The people of Iraq would greet their American and coalition liberators with flowers. Any damage to Iraq would be paid for out of the oil revenues from that country. After Baghdad was occupied and Saddam Hussein had fled, son George arranged a celebration on an aircraft carrier. The theme of the celebration was “Mission Accomplished.” The war was over, the new government would soon be in place, American oil companies would take control of the oil from Iraq, and the armies would return home.
But, George couldn’t get away with it. When Saddam Hussein fled, the entire government collapsed, including the local police. Thieves looted the Baghdad Museum. Thieves stole the copper wires that supplied electrical power to the city. The Iraqi Army had been disbanded and there was no organization to maintain peace and order in the country. The coalition force was woefully inadequate to the task of occupying and policing Iraq. Worse still, some of George’s excuses for the war were exposed as false. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. The UN inspectors had found and disposed of them after the father’s war to save Kuwait. The people of Iraq did not welcome the occupying army with flowers, but with home-made explosive devices. The country fell into a civil war between two factions of Islam, the Sunni and the Shi’a.
Poor George!
Also, as a matter of law, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. He can order them to go anywhere in the world. He can order them to attack a presumed enemy of the United States. The President’s father, former President George H. W. Bush, had sent American forces to attack Iraq to free the Emirate of Kuwait from Iraq occupation. Father Bush had an army of half a million men in his enterprise, including support from many nations. Several Arab nations supported Father Bush’s war to free Kuwait. Father Bush was criticized for stopping at the border between Kuwait and Iraq. The critics said he should have continued the advance, after defeating the Iraq Army, all the way to Baghdad. There he should have removed Saddam Hussein from power and replaced him with a ruler friendly to the United States and its interests.
Son George resolved to complete the unfinished work of the father. He used intelligence of dubious quality to persuade Congress to give him the authority to use force against Iraq. He then assembled an army of about one-third the size of his father’s army and a coalition with fewer members than his father’s and proceeded to invade Iraq. His advisors convinced him that the attack would be over in short order. The coalition forces would occupy Baghdad, depose Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government, and depart. The people of Iraq would greet their American and coalition liberators with flowers. Any damage to Iraq would be paid for out of the oil revenues from that country. After Baghdad was occupied and Saddam Hussein had fled, son George arranged a celebration on an aircraft carrier. The theme of the celebration was “Mission Accomplished.” The war was over, the new government would soon be in place, American oil companies would take control of the oil from Iraq, and the armies would return home.
But, George couldn’t get away with it. When Saddam Hussein fled, the entire government collapsed, including the local police. Thieves looted the Baghdad Museum. Thieves stole the copper wires that supplied electrical power to the city. The Iraqi Army had been disbanded and there was no organization to maintain peace and order in the country. The coalition force was woefully inadequate to the task of occupying and policing Iraq. Worse still, some of George’s excuses for the war were exposed as false. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. The UN inspectors had found and disposed of them after the father’s war to save Kuwait. The people of Iraq did not welcome the occupying army with flowers, but with home-made explosive devices. The country fell into a civil war between two factions of Islam, the Sunni and the Shi’a.
Poor George!
Labels: firing US Attorneys, Iraq, Kuwait liberation, looting in Baghdad, President G. H. W. Bush, President G. W. Bush, UN Inspectors
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Firing of Federal Attorneys - a Scandal?
The Bush Administration is doing its best to downplay the importance of the firing of the federal attorneys. Bush's man in the Justice Department, Alberto Gonzales, now says that "mistakes were made." They must have been serious mistakes because even some stalwart conservative Senators, including Mr. Cornyn of Texas and Mr. Sununu of New Hampshire, are disturbed by the firings. I believe that the first story that came out was that the individuals had been terminated for poor performance. That story didn't last long. Some of the fired prosecutors publicly stated that they had recently been given very good performance reviews. Then some nosy reporter dug out some memos and e-mails between the President's lawyer, Harriet Miers, and a functionary in the Justice Department in which they discussed either firing all of the attorneys or some of them. Attorneys would be fired or terminated if they were reluctant or uneasy about vigorously carrying out the President's agenda. An example given was not strongly enforcing the immigration laws; another example was not vigorously prosecuting cases of voter fraud.
Now Mr. Gonzales appears before Congress and admits that mistakes were made. One mistake that got even the conservative supporters of the President irritated was that the first story, that the decisions were strictly Justice Department decisions, wasn't true. Now it is known that the White House had an important hand in deciding whom to fire and whom to keep. For example, the US Attorney for Little Rock was replaced to make room for a protege of Karl Rove. California Senator Feinstein was irritated that the US Attorney for Los Angeles had been fired, shortly after prosecuting and achieving the conviction and sentence to prison of Republican Duke Cunningham for bribery. Another US Attorney, the one for Albuquerque, stated that a Republican Senator and a Republican Representative had questioned him about the status of an investigation into corruption by a Democratic official, especially whether there was a sealed indictment that would become public before the election last November.
The President's apologists point out that US Attorneys are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the President. Newly elected Presidents customarily replace attorneys appointed by a previous President of the other party. No law was broken in firing the US Attorneys, so why the big fuss?
It's legal. It's still a scandal. It shows that our system of justice is subject to manipulation according to the whim of the President. US Attorneys can be pressured, or at least influenced, to conduct investigations and prosecutions that are favored by the President and his party. In a Republican Administration, corruption by Republicans will be hidden and corruption by Democrats will be exposed and publicized. In a Democratic Administration, corruption by Republicans will be exposed, publicized, and prosecuted while Democratic corruption will be hidden.
One rather obvious solution is to change the office of US Attorney from a political appointment to a career civil service position. US Attorneys, just like federal judges, should be insulated from political pressures.
So also should prosecuting attorneys of smaller government units: States, counties, and cities. It's a scandal that we in the United States elect county and city prosecutors. An attorney who has to run for reelection in two or four years is certainly under political pressure in dealing with cases that have acquired public notoriety. The public demands that someone be punished for the heinous act. The pressure is intense for the police to find a suitable scape goat and for the prosecutor to convict. Every now and then we learn of a convict who was wrongfully convicted and was serving time for another's crime. I believe that such mistakes would occur less often if prosecutors were not facing reelection.
What can I do besides complain about the situation? I know of no movement to change the way that city, county, and State prosecutors are chosen. I don't know whether the current scandal in Washington will cause Congress to change the law regarding the selection and terms of office of US Attorneys. All I can do is wait and see. Perhaps one of my friends who read this blog will present some suggestions.
Now Mr. Gonzales appears before Congress and admits that mistakes were made. One mistake that got even the conservative supporters of the President irritated was that the first story, that the decisions were strictly Justice Department decisions, wasn't true. Now it is known that the White House had an important hand in deciding whom to fire and whom to keep. For example, the US Attorney for Little Rock was replaced to make room for a protege of Karl Rove. California Senator Feinstein was irritated that the US Attorney for Los Angeles had been fired, shortly after prosecuting and achieving the conviction and sentence to prison of Republican Duke Cunningham for bribery. Another US Attorney, the one for Albuquerque, stated that a Republican Senator and a Republican Representative had questioned him about the status of an investigation into corruption by a Democratic official, especially whether there was a sealed indictment that would become public before the election last November.
The President's apologists point out that US Attorneys are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the President. Newly elected Presidents customarily replace attorneys appointed by a previous President of the other party. No law was broken in firing the US Attorneys, so why the big fuss?
It's legal. It's still a scandal. It shows that our system of justice is subject to manipulation according to the whim of the President. US Attorneys can be pressured, or at least influenced, to conduct investigations and prosecutions that are favored by the President and his party. In a Republican Administration, corruption by Republicans will be hidden and corruption by Democrats will be exposed and publicized. In a Democratic Administration, corruption by Republicans will be exposed, publicized, and prosecuted while Democratic corruption will be hidden.
One rather obvious solution is to change the office of US Attorney from a political appointment to a career civil service position. US Attorneys, just like federal judges, should be insulated from political pressures.
So also should prosecuting attorneys of smaller government units: States, counties, and cities. It's a scandal that we in the United States elect county and city prosecutors. An attorney who has to run for reelection in two or four years is certainly under political pressure in dealing with cases that have acquired public notoriety. The public demands that someone be punished for the heinous act. The pressure is intense for the police to find a suitable scape goat and for the prosecutor to convict. Every now and then we learn of a convict who was wrongfully convicted and was serving time for another's crime. I believe that such mistakes would occur less often if prosecutors were not facing reelection.
What can I do besides complain about the situation? I know of no movement to change the way that city, county, and State prosecutors are chosen. I don't know whether the current scandal in Washington will cause Congress to change the law regarding the selection and terms of office of US Attorneys. All I can do is wait and see. Perhaps one of my friends who read this blog will present some suggestions.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, firing US Attorneys, political pressure on prosecutors
