"I
would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for
political reasons," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate
Judiciary Committee two months ago.
If you want to understand how
a pretty minor story — the removal of eight U.S. attorneys by the Bush
administration — has somehow metastasized into a major controversy,
that statement by Gonzales is your Rosetta Stone. It opens the door to
the three levels of scandal in this story, ranging from relatively
minor to potentially grave and earthshaking.
Let's start with the relatively minor. In his statement to Congress,
Gonzales acknowledges it would be wrong to remove prosecutors for
political reasons. It is so wrong, he tells Congress, that he would
never, ever do such a terrible thing.
And yet he did.
Since
that statement, the evidence has become overwhelming that some if not
most of the attorneys were ousted for political reasons, with
considerable input from the White House. One of the eight, for example,
was removed as U.S. attorney in Arkansas despite glowing performance
reviews. Why? So an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove
could get the job.
Now, that's not a huge scandal. Such
decisions, even if made on a political basis, are clearly within a
president's perogative. They do bring into question the judgment of
those who would treat one of the most important jobs in federal law
enforcement like a mere political plum, but they do not explain why
this scandal threatens the careers and reputations of some of the most
powerful people in Washington.
To understand that, you have to
step to the next level: By denying any political motive or involvement
by the White House, Gonzales and other Bush officials lied to the U.S.
Senate. That has angered politicians of both parties, leading at least
two Republican senators to demand Gonzales' resignation. It's almost
funny — a Congress that has allowed itself to be lied to, stonewalled,
ignored and ridiculed by the administration for six years over issues
fundamental to government finally gets upset at how it's treated, and
it's over something like this.
The third level of this scandal is
by far the most troubling and explosive, and also the least understood.
It goes to how and why those eight prosecutors were selected for
replacement despite the fact that most of them were Bush appointees who
had conducted themselves well as U.S. attorneys.
John McKay, a
well respected Republican lawyer ousted as U.S. attorney in Seattle,
says he may have been tagged for removal because he fended off
unethical demands from Republican leaders to pursue charges of vote
fraud against Washington Democrats, even though those charges were
groundless.
"There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag
innocent people in front of a grand jury,'' says McKay, who suggests a
special prosecutor may be needed to determine the full extent of this
scandal.
David Iglesias, the equally well respected Republican
ousted as U.S. attorney in New Mexico, believes that he, too, was
removed because he ignored pressure from fellow Republicans to indict
Democrats just before the 2006 elections. Iglesias has told Congress he
felt pressured by phone calls from a U.S. senator and congresswoman;
barely a week after the election, his name was added to an internal
list of attorneys to be removed.
The most troubling case may be
that of Carol Lam, a U.S. attorney from San Diego who put Duke
Cunningham, a Republican congressman from California, in federal prison
on corruption charges. On the day the Los Angeles Times reported that
Lam was also investigating U.S. Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the
powerful head of the House Appropriations Committee, a top Justice
Department official sent an internal e-mail to the White House,
complaining about "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam,"
suggesting a replacement be found quickly.
Any implication that a
U.S. attorney's employment depends on his or her willingness to protect
a president's political allies and persecute his enemies strikes at the
heart of public confidence in the system. Here in Georgia, for example,
defenders of former state Sen. Charles Walker, a top Democrat now
serving a federal prison term, have long argued that he was the victim
of politically motivated prosecution.
That's not the case; Walker
was guilty and got what he deserved. But in some quarters this scandal
will be seen as lending credence to Walker's claim, and that's
unfortunate.
Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. His column appears Mondays and Thursdays.
###
