Surging and Purging - New York Times
The New York Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 19, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Surging and Purging
By
PAUL KRUGMAN

There's something happening here, and what it is seems completely clear: the
Bush administration is trying to protect itself by purging
independent-minded
prosecutors.

Last month, Bud Cummins, the U.S. attorney (federal prosecutor) for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, received a call on his cellphone while hiking
in the
woods with his son. He was informed that he had just been replaced by J.
Timothy Griffin, a Republican political operative who has spent the last few
years
working as an opposition researcher for Karl Rove.

Mr. Cummins's case isn't unique. Since the middle of last month, the Bush
administration has pushed out at least four U.S. attorneys, and possibly as
many
as seven, without explanation. The list includes Carol Lam, the U.S.
attorney for San Diego, who successfully prosecuted Duke Cunningham, a
Republican
congressman, on major corruption charges. The top F.B.I. official in San
Diego told The San Diego Union-Tribune that Ms. Lam's dismissal would
undermine
multiple continuing investigations.

In Senate testimony yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to
say how many other attorneys have been asked to resign, calling it a
"personnel
matter."

In case you're wondering, such a wholesale firing of prosecutors midway
through an administration isn't normal. U.S. attorneys, The Wall Street
Journal
recently pointed out, "typically are appointed at the beginning of a new
president's term, and serve throughout that term." Why, then, are
prosecutors
that the Bush administration itself appointed suddenly being pushed out?

The likely answer is that for the first time the administration is really
worried about where corruption investigations might lead.

Since the day it took power this administration has shown nothing but
contempt for the normal principles of good government. For six years ethical
problems
and conflicts of interest have been the rule, not the exception.

For a long time the administration nonetheless seemed untouchable, protected
both by Republican control of Congress and by its ability to justify
anything
and everything as necessary for the war on terror. Now, however, the
investigations are closing in on the Oval Office. The latest news is that J.
Steven
Griles, the former deputy secretary of the Interior Department and the
poster child for the administration's systematic policy of putting foxes in
charge
of henhouses, is finally facing possible indictment.

And the purge of U.S. attorneys looks like a pre-emptive strike against the
gathering forces of justice.

Won't the administration have trouble getting its new appointees confirmed
by the Senate? Well, it turns out that it won't have to.

Arlen Specter, the Republican senator who headed the Judiciary Committee
until Congress changed hands, made sure of that last year. Previously, new
U.S.
attorneys needed Senate confirmation within 120 days or federal district
courts would name replacements. But as part of a conference committee
reconciling
House and Senate versions of the revised Patriot Act, Mr. Specter slipped in
a clause eliminating that rule.

As Paul Kiel of
TPMmuckraker.com
- which has done yeoman investigative reporting on this story - put it,
this clause in effect allows the administration "to handpick replacements
and keep
them there in perpetuity without the ordeal of Senate confirmation." How
convenient.

Mr. Gonzales says that there's nothing political about the firings. And
according to The Associated Press, he said that district court judges
shouldn't
appoint U.S. attorneys because they "tend to appoint friends and others not
properly qualified to be prosecutors." Words fail me.

Mr. Gonzales also says that the administration intends to get Senate
confirmation for every replacement. Sorry, but that's not at all credible,
even if
we ignore the administration's track record. Mr. Griffin, the
political-operative-turned-prosecutor, would be savaged in a confirmation
hearing. By appointing
him, the administration showed that it has no intention of following the
usual rules.

The broader context is this: defeat in the midterm elections hasn't led the
Bush administration to scale back its imperial view of presidential power.

On the contrary, now that President Bush can no longer count on Congress to
do his bidding, he's more determined than ever to claim essentially
unlimited
authority - whether it's the authority to send more troops into Iraq or the
authority to stonewall investigations into his own administration's conduct.

The next two years, in other words, are going to be a rolling constitutional
crisis.

Copyright 2007
The New York Times Company

Posted by Miriam V.