The US Attorney "Scandal" And Why We Ought To Care

Not that interested? Neither is Dave@GR, but he took the time to give us a little history--Andrew Johnson had much more serious troubles-- and even find a little legal precedent (whether it's controlling or not I have no idea):

A similar law dealing with lesser officials (i.e. sub-Cabinet appointees) was ruled unconstitutional in 1926 in Myers vs. United States.

It is Myers that came to mind when this latest Beltway baseball kerfluffle first broke. Myers determined that the President has "the exclusive power of removing executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."...

Now, again-- the firings of the U.S. attorneys may be bad politics; obviously, the post-firing *handling* of the situation certainly was. But from a legal viewpoint (at least my amateur legal viewpoint), the President was well with in his rights to fire the attorneys.

Thus, we come back to my first point. . . so what? It's a Beltway scandal, of interest to Beltway insiders, and it's being spun simply for the sake of spinning.

Hey guys. . . isn't there a war on?

Exactly. Furthermore, Patterico jumps in with some info on why these guys were fired. [Well, trust me, he does, but his blog is not coming up right now. I'll insert a link and replace this text when it I can find the post I'm thinking of].

Meanwhile the Washington Post admits today that, lacking the vast investigative resources of that one part-time dude at "Patterico.com" with the spotty webhost, it is baffled as to why these firings may have occurred:

For all their vivid detail, the e-mails and other records shed little light on the Bush administration's motives for carrying out the firings in the way it did. The new documents also provide little evidence that Justice officials sought to interfere with public corruption probes, as many Democrats and some of the prosecutors have alleged.

Then partially confirming Patterico's reporting, they include this note about fired attorney Carol Lam:

Last June, for example, Justice officials painstakingly drafted soothing responses to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who had expressed concerns that Lam was not aggressive enough in prosecuting immigration violations in her San Diego district. "Please rest assured that the immigration laws in the southern district of California are being vigorously enforced," said a draft of a letter from Moschella to Issa.

But e-mails show that senior Justice officials were angry at Lam for her immigration record and planned for months to remove her. William Mercer, now third in command at Justice, exchanged a flurry of e-mails with Elston last July mocking Lam, writing at one point in her voice: "You're right, I've ignored national priorities and obvious local needs. Shoot my production is more hideous than I realized."

Now that's the really weird thing about this. I think Patterico may have broken something really vital there and I want to draw attention to this, so I'm going to drastically overuse the bold tag in the next paragraph:

If Patterico is right, President Bush fired some of these U.S. attorneys for some reasons many conservatives would approve of. It would be ridiculous if pretty much the one time President Bush actually makes a (quiet) stand on illegal immigration enforcement, it ends up damaging his presidency. It would really suck if conservatives didn't support him for actually doing something that we've been pressuring him to do for years now. At the very least it sounds like GWB was making certain that the public servants he appointed were doing their jobs and not treating such a vital position as a political sinecure.

As Dave notes, this is mostly interesting to Beltway insiders. But from what I can piece together here it's not a Seinfeldian scandal about nothing, like Plamegate. It's a scandal about something important: the enforcement of illegal immigration laws and an insistence on competent prosecutors. Bush has thrown down the gauntlet to bar a Congressional inquisition, and he deserves conservatives' support on this issue--especially since the question of executive privilege being debated here is also a constitutional question that should concern us all.

Whether or not you're a big Alberto Gonzales fan--and I'm lukewarm--don't focus on the personalities here. Focus on the principles, and on the politics, and don't let the Democrats punish the administration for doing something smart. He needs to know that there is still a base out there. I do hope this dries up and blows away, but it will only do so if it becomes clear that President Bush is being helped by this instead of hurt, and the Waxman revenge-o-matic moves on to something else.

P.S. As for doing something smart, isn't it bizarre that a fact like this which would actually help the President shore up tattered support among his base...only comes out in the wake of a scandal?