On the March 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, National Public Radio's Mara Liasson falsely claimed that under new rules governing the appointment of interim U.S. attorneys, the Bush administration could appoint people to those positions, “but they couldn't stay there” without Senate confirmation. She added that “Congress could have pulled the plug on every one of them -- every one of the new ones if they didn't like them.” This assertion is simply false: A law enacted in March 2006 as part of the renewal of the USA Patriot Act does allow an administration-appointed “interim” U.S. attorney to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation -- a change that lies at the heart of the current U.S. attorney scandal. Under the new law, if the president does not nominate a permanent replacement for his “interim” appointee, the appointee could serve at least until the end of the president's term in office. This denies Congress the opportunity to “pull the plug” on an “interim” appointee, contrary to Liasson's claim.

In December 2006, the Bush administration fired eight U.S. attorneys, knowing that it could handpick replacements who could serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation because of the new Patriot Act provision. As the weblog TPMmuckraker.com noted, under the previous law, the attorney general appointed interim U.S. attorneys who could serve only until the Senate confirmed a replacement or until 120 days had passed, whichever occurred first. After 120 days, the local federal district court could select an interim appointee to serve until the Senate confirmed a replacement. The office of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Congress passed the Patriot Act renewal, reportedly added the provision eliminating the 120-day limit and the role of the local federal district court. At a February 6 Judiciary Committee hearing, Specter said that a member of his staff had inserted the provision without his knowledge. Democrats have proposed legislation (here and here) that would reverse the provision's changes. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales reportedly said that the administration will not oppose such legislation, but Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) has reportedly indicated that he intends to block the reversal.

Liasson's remarks came during a Special Report “All-Star Panel” discussion of the controversy surrounding the removal of the U.S. attorneys. Liasson noted Democrats' criticism that the Bush administration “was trying to take advantage of this rule that would allow him to put the new ones [U.S. attorneys] in without congressional approval.” She then suggested that this criticism was baseless: “In fact,” she said, under the new rule, “Congress could have pulled the plug on ... every one of the” administration's “interim” appointees. Liasson added, “They did get to go into office without confirmation, but they couldn't stay there.”

In addition, Liasson attributed to “Democrats” the idea that the administration was “trying to take advantage” of the new rules by firing the U.S. attorneys. However, administration emails turned over to the House Judiciary Committee have indicated an intent to do just that in the case of J. Timothy Griffin, the “interim” U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin replaced H.E. “Bud” Cummins III, who was forced to resign. As a March 13 Washington Post article reported, “E-mails show that Justice officials discussed bypassing the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, who normally would have had input into the appointment, as early as last August.” One of those “Justice officials” was D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned as Gonzales' chief of staff in the wake of the most recent disclosures, although, according to Gonzales, Sampson is technically “still at the [Justice Department] as he transitions out and looks for other employment.” As the Post reported, Sampson wrote an email in mid-December 2006 “suggesting that Gonzales exercise his newfound appointment authority to put Griffin in place until the end of Bush's term.” From Sampson's December 19, 2006, email regarding the controversy over Griffin's appointment:

My thoughts:

1. I think we should gum this to death: ask the [Arkansas] Senators to give Tim [Griffin] a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say, “no never” (and the longer we can forestall that, the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in “good faith,” of course.

[...]

4. The only thing really at risk here is a repeal of the AG's appointment authority. We intend to have DOJ leg[islative] affairs people on notice to work hard to preserve this (House members won't care about this; all we really need is for one Senator to object to language being added to legislative vehicles that are moving through). There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it? (I'm not 100 percent sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority, but know that getting him appointed was important to [then-White House counsel] Harriet [Miers], [White House senior adviser] Karl [Rove], etc.)

From the March 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

BRIT HUME (host): Isn't it equally political -- or is it equally political, Mara, for [Sen.] Chuck Schumer [D-NY], silent in the face of a mass firing of all the U.S. attorneys back in 1993, to be indignant now?

LIASSON: Yeah. If Clinton gets to have the U.S. attorneys he wants, which is what that was about, Bush gets --

HUME: All at once.

LIASSON: Bush gets the U.S. attorneys he wants. Now, the one thing that Democrats said, “Well, he was trying to fire them to take advantage of this rule that would allow him to put the new ones in without congressional approval.” In fact, Congress could have pulled the plug on every one of them -- every one of the new ones if they didn't like them.

HUME: Right.

LIASSON: They did get to go into office without confirmation, but they couldn't stay there.