“of course, every president has the right to hire and fire U.S. attorneys at will. Every president, when they come in in a new term, like President Clinton did, basically cleans house and puts in new U.S. attorneys. Ronald Reagan did within his first year, George Bush, the first, did within his first year, and this president, Karl Rove’s employer, George Bush, our present President George Bush did it. All the U.S. attorneys were replaced. What’s different here is not simply that the president wanting this choice, not that choice, but, in these instances, the evidence is becoming more and more overwhelming that certain U.S. attorneys, and only certain ones, not all of them, but certain U.S. attorneys were fired because either they wouldn’t prosecute a case that was politically advantageous to the White House or they were prosecuting a case that was disadvantageous to the White House.”
Republicans are trying to turn the issue back on Schumer, who, in addition to serving on the judiciary committee also acts as the head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Arlen Specter pointed out the apparent conflict of interest:
“Let’s look at what the facts are: Senator Schumer is leading the inquiry. And the day after we had the testimony about Senator Domenici, he puts his name up on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, criticizing, or making the argument, that he ought not to be reelected. I think that the inquiry by the Judiciary Committee ought to have a modicum of objectivity.”
And on This Week, Sen. Jon Cornyn got to the heart of the problem:
“George, it’s clear that the president, as you said, has the right to terminate all the U.S. Attorneys and all of these had had their four year term expire. The problem is, and I’ve joined Senator Leahy in this, is saying that the explanation was botched from the outset. If someone had suggested that people had had their chance to serve, and now it’s time to give someone else a chance … I don’t think we’d be here today. The problem was that there were suggestions made that there were performance based reasons. … I don’t believe there’s any evidence that indicates that these individuals were relieved of their responsibilities for any inappropriate reasons.”
One of the fired attorneys, David Iglesias, appeared on Fox News Sunday and hammered that point home:
“Performance has nothing to do with this, it’s a political hit. I just wish the justice department would’ve been honest when it testified in January that these were in fact not performance related but in fact were political . . . it was just the manner in which they tried to misrepresent the true nature of our failings. All they should have done was just say at the very beginning these political appointees have lost political favor, we don’t need to give you any details and let it go at that. Instead they tried to slander us on our way out, and I had a duty to defend my honor and the honor of my office.”
Meet the Press’s roundtable featured a relatively eclectic mix: former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Richard Perle of the American Enterprise Institute, former Rep. Tom Andrews, currently the director of Win Without War, and former admiral/current representative, Joe Sestak. Needless to say, this group created some sparks. Consider this exchange, taken directly from the transcript:
REP. SESTAK: Tom, it’s a different strategy.
FMR. REP. DeLAY: No, it’s surrender.
REP. SESTAK: That brings about a more–no. Tom, we’ve learned so much in the military that…
FMR. REP. DeLAY: “This is hard, so I want to surrender.”
REP. SESTAK: Absolutely not.
FMR. REP. DeLAY: That’s exactly what it is.
REP. SESTAK: You never just keep banging your head against the wall, we learn in the military. Is there a better way to go about it? And that’s what this bill does is it takes the last leverage we have to make it happen.
MR. PERLE: You must be the first admiral in history to argue that announcing to the enemy that we’re going to pull out is going to lead you to victory.
For more in this vein, check out the full transcript. It’s worth reading.
