A machiavellian thought about the U.S. Attorney scandal

That's what politicians generally try to do. Part of the problem, as one of our new commenters yesterday pointed out, is that this White House has not been very adept at getting the real facts out. In part, this is because they've sometimes focused too much on "message" rather than "facts," and in part it's because (as Tully has often noted), the media just doesn't report the facts which they are provided by the White House.

I'm working on a general piece on the fired U.S. Attorneys myself, looking at the factual background and historical practices. But I've got to do some paying work for a bit today, so it might not make it out until tomorrow.

I do think these battles, futile though they may feel, are important, and that it is important to continue to present the actual facts regardless of how lost they seem to be getting in the debate. The regular, repeat commenters we see talking past each other are not the target audience. When I argue with folks like glasnost over at Obsidian Wings, I'm only very partially trying to convince him. The real target of my persuasion is the silent readers who don't chime in but are following along. They are the ones who haven't made their mind up, and they, the great unwashed masses, will eventually, over time and in the end, recognize the truth and act upon it, no matter what the headlines say from day to day... but only if we keep pointing out the truth somewhere for them to hear.

I'm not following why this scandal is being viewed by people more on facts than on feeling, or how it is similar to the Foley scandal. The evidence is mounting daily that the US Attorney firings were politically motivated and directed from the White House because US Attorneys would not go after Democrats (and that Gonzales may have lied about it). If true, that's a pretty serious mis-use of authority (even if legal). It is true that this does fit in well with the storyline anti-Bushers have about the Administration being generally corrupt or generally incompetent, but that doesn't mean the actual scandal isn't real or serious, or that the actual storyline isn't true.

the actual scandal, and the question that needs answering is whether actual illegal or unethical things were done (innocent people punished, guilty people let go), or it's just a case of politicians being politicians. If it's the latter, you roll your eyes, but that is the way the game is played, no?

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

[new comment thread started because of the indent level]

Now we can make some progress. You quote the Post as saying that the White House "initially suggested firing all 93 U.S. attorneys." Now I can go to the actual e-mail and look at what was actually said.

On Jan. 1, 2006, Kyle Sampson wrote to the White House Counsel, Harriet Meiers, saying "you asked whether President Bush should remove and replace the U.S. Attorneys whose four-year terms have expired." Asking a question is not always the same as making a suggestion. This may be a fine point, but it's an important one. Harriet Meiers could very well have said something like: "Kyle, I know that U.S. Attorneys serve for 4-year terms. Are we supposed to remove all of them at once? What's the past practice for that?" Sampson replied with a quite proper course of action.

[UPDATE: 1:48pm: Ok, gotta take that one back. A later e-mail (here, at page 32) has Sampson telling someone that Meiers had been "pushing" an across-the-board removal after 2004. Still, that's hardly improper and certainly not evidence of targeting individuals for being too lax on Democrats.]

You also quote the Post as reporting:

Last week, senior Justice official William E. Moschella told a House Judiciary subcommittee that the White House was not consulted on the firings until the end of the process.

This is used to support the charge that "the administration" mislead Congress.

Whether Moschella's testimony is a discrepancy from the truth will be determined, no doubt, by additional investigations. I can't find a transcript to find out exactly what he said. As a lawyer in a high-profile political job, I expect he chose his words very carefully. Only a fool would lie about something like this a week after the Scooter Libby verdict, and I doubt Moschella is that stupid. But let's look at the details, and see whether they support a change against "the administration".

MSNBC says that Moschella was "enraged" when he found out about the e-mails between Sampson and Meiers:

McNulty, Moschella and other Justice officials were enraged when they found out about the communications last Thursday, when Sampson produced the documents, according to officials who declined to speak for attribution in discussing internal Justice matters.

That's evidence that Moschella was not aware of the communications when he testified. "USDOJ" didn't mislead Congress, then, Sampson did, if anybody. And we don't know what questions Moschella asked Sampson before he went to testify, so it's possible that it was a misunderstanding. Washington's a big place, and the left hand often doesn't know what the right is doing.

Had the "administration" really been trying to mislead Congress, why in the world would they have released all these e-mails? These e-mails are easily subject to a claim of executive privilege and, in some cases, of attorney-client privilege. Yet "the administration" has released them within about a week of Moschella's testimony.

And was what Moschella said actually false? The word "consult" implies an exchange of views, something beyond mere "informing." So far, from the e-mails I've read, Meiers was never "consulted" about who to fire, she was merely informed about whose names the DOJ had decided should be put on the chopping block. There's no indication I've seen in the e-mails so far that Meiers or the White House ever weighed in with particular names, beyond Tim Griffin. And Bud Cummins, who Griffin replaced, was on the list which DOJ generated and sent to Meiers on March 2, 2005, recommended for replacement based on performance or refusal to support Administration policy, an entirely proper political reason for dismissal.

That March 2, 2005 list is very important. It was produced, so far as we know so far, entirely by DOJ as part of a wide-ranging end-of-term review. Of the 7 people removed from their position, DOJ was recommending the removal of 3 of them, Cummins, Lam, and Chiara, way back then.

Now, if you want to look for evidence of White House "interference" (which would not be improper, by the way), you might want to focus on David Iglesias of New Mexico and Kevin Ryan of California, whose names are bolded in the March 2 list, meaning that they are recommended for retaining.

I will grant that based on the facts presented in the MSNBC report, the conclusion that somebody was intentionally misleading Congress about the White House's involvement in the nomination of Griffin (but not the removal of Cummins) is a bit stronger. Sampson's email about "gumming" Griffin's interim appointment to death shows an intentional plan to mislead at least particular members of Congress about the administration's true intention with the length of his appointment. But that's a political misdeed, not a criminal one.