I was stunned by this from today's New York Times:
"The attorney general said Mr. Sampson was in charge of the process but periodically told him about his progress in identifying under-performing prosecutors. 'I was never focused on specific concerns about United States attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign,' Mr. Gonzales said.
"'I was more focused on identifying, or making sure the White House was appropriately advised of the progress of our review.'"
Think about that for a second. The Attorney General of the United States is saying that he delegated to his chief of staff - a thirty-something political type with absolutely no law enforcement experience - the decision on whether to fire United States Attorneys, the chief law enforcement officer of the district - and the Attorney General's only concern was to make sure that the White House was kept informed. What basis did Sampson have for judgment of someone's effectiveness either as a manager or as a prosecutor? Is it really appropriate to delegate to a political operative the authority to determine which Presidentially appointed and senatorially confirmed officials should be fired? And what does it say about the competence and the priorities of the Attorney General that his only concern was the White House side of this? No wonder that the decisions seems to have been based on political considerations ("loyal Bushies") rather than law enforcement effectiveness.
Don't get me wrong here. The President has the absolute right to choose who he wants as U. S. Attorney. Indeed I would go farther and say that the President, as the chief executive, has the right to direct a U.S. Attorney to drop a particular investigation for political reasons. But there should be political consequences for that kind of behavior, and in that respect this is playing out exactly as it should. Moreover, the lack of experience that the Department leadership has in law enforcement, and their focus on politics over policy, has consequences.
As a Justice Department official from the Clinton years I find a particular irony in looking back at the Republican attacks on Janet Reno for "politicizing" the Department. That was false; but it's clear that they were projecting their own
expectations on our conduct. This Administration has done tremendous damage to the Department.