While discussing the U.S. attorney firings on the March 15 edition of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson stated: “These U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president. He can fire them at any time,” then asked ABC News legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg: “So, did anything really get done that was wrong?” In her reply, Greenburg referred to former President Bill Clinton's firing of nearly all U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his term, but added: “Of course, the president can fire U.S. attorneys when he chooses.” She then characterized the “problem” for the administration as “the White House [not] be[ing] forthcoming with how this whole plan” to dismiss specific U.S. attorneys “began.” But Gibson's suggestion that the administration did nothing wrong, given the president's authority to fire U.S. attorneys, and Greenburg's suggestion that the scandal surrounds “the White House [not] be[ing] forthcoming” about its role in the dismissals miss the central issues raised by this scandal. These include allegations of unethical conduct by Republican members of Congress and charges that a former high-ranking Justice Department official violated federal law by knowingly allowing DOJ officials to give false information to Congress.
As Media Matters for America has noted, while both Clinton and Bush dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon entering office following an administration of the opposite party, contrary to Greenburg's suggestion in invoking the Clinton dismissals, Bush's recent actions in firing eight U.S. attorneys are in fact highly unusual. The Washington Post reported in a March 14 article that “legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.” A day earlier, McClatchy Newspapers had noted that "[m]ass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration." McClatchy added that “Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees.”
Contrary to the characterizations of the scandal offered by Gibson and Greenburg on World News, the possible misconduct goes beyond simply a failure on the part of the White House to be “forthcoming” about the firings. Indeed, one of the dismissed prosecutors, David C. Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, has alleged that Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM) “attempted to pressure him to speed up a probe of Democrats just before the November elections,” as Media Matters has noted. Both Domenici and Wilson have since acknowledged contacting Iglesias about his corruption investigations. In its March 5 article on Domenici's statement, the Post reported: “Legal experts say it violates congressional ethics rules for a senator or House member to communicate with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation.” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has since filed ethics complaints against both lawmakers, alleging that they are in violation of congressional ethics rules that prohibit lawmakers from communicating with prosecutors about investigations.
Further, CREW has alleged that Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, “knew that he was causing DOJ officials to make inaccurate statements to Congress,” when these officials testified before Congress about the attorney dismissals. According to CREW, DOJ “officials have testified before Congress that the U.S. Attorneys were asked to resign for performance related reasons, that the White House was minimally involved in the firings and that the Department was in no way attempting to evade the confirmation process for new U.S. Attorneys.” But recently released emails show considerable communication between Sampson and then-White House legal counsel Harriet Miers, in which they discussed various plans to dismiss certain U.S. attorneys. In its request for the appointment of a special prosecutor, CREW noted that "[a]ccording to press reports, Sampson has acknowledged that he did not tell DOJ officials about the extent of his communications with the White House regarding the firings," which could be in violation of federal law. From CREW's press release on the request of a special prosecutor:
Federal law provides that if Sampson knew that he was causing DOJ officials to make inaccurate statements to Congress, he can be prosecuted for the federal crime of lying to Congress even though he did not personally make any statements to Congress. The Special Prosecutor should investigate not only Mr. Sampson's conduct but whether anyone else was involved in formulating the incomplete and erroneous congressional testimony or whether the officials who testified were aware that they were providing imperfect information to Congress.
From the March 15 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: But to come back to the point the White House makes: Was anything necessarily wrong? These U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president. He can fire them at any time. So, did anything really get done that was wrong?
GREENBURG: Well, that's exactly right. And President Clinton, in fact, fired all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office from the previous Republican administration. Of course, the president can fire U.S. attorneys when he chooses. The problem for the White House now and the Justice Department is that these emails seemed to suggest the White House -- at least that's what Democratic senators are saying tonight -- the White House hasn't been forthcoming with how this whole plan began, and they show that Rove was in on it from the beginning.
