Inside Bush's prosecutor purge

Why has the administration fired U.S. attorneys with sterling track records? To make room for its political loyalists, critics say, and exert its last shred of control.

By Mark Follman

Read more: George W. Bush, Law, Politics, News, Karl Rove, Mark Follman, Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorneys, Bud Cummins

Feb. 28, 2007 | Ever since the Bush administration shocked the legal community by dismissing eight U.S. attorneys in December, Justice Department leaders have vigorously denied that the firings were politically motivated. "I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in Senate testimony in early January. In a Feb. 6 hearing, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told lawmakers, "When I hear you talk about the politicizing of the Department of Justice, it's like a knife in my heart."

But at least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department official knowledgeable about their cases. That stands in contradiction to administration claims that the firings were related either to job performance or policy differences. A fourth U.S. attorney was told by a top Justice Department official that the dismissal in that attorney's case was not necessarily related to job performance. Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in New Mexico -- who officially steps down from his post on Wednesday, and who says he was never told by superiors about any problems with his work -- plans to go public with documentation of the achievements of his office.

"I never received any indication at all of a problem" regarding performance or policy differences, Iglesias told Salon on Monday. "That only leaves a third option: politics."

Iglesias acknowledged that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed without cause. "But it's really been maddening," he said, that the administration is pointing to job-performance issues to defend the firings. Iglesias, who was appointed by Bush in 2001, noted that his office got a "very positive" evaluation in the Justice Department's own internal ratings system as recently as last fall and that he received a letter from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys in January 2006 commending him for his "exemplary leadership in the Department's priority programs," including antiterrorism, community crime prevention and law enforcement coordination.

Iglesias said he was "shocked" by the phone call on Dec. 7 telling him to resign. He added, "I think Americans need to have full confidence that their federal prosecutors are above politics."

Suspicions about the unusual purge of eight U.S. attorneys in December exploded into the open across the legal community and on Capitol Hill after McNulty conceded in Senate testimony on Feb. 6 that the U.S. attorney in Arkansas, Bud Cummins, was pushed out for no reason other than to give someone else a shot at the job. Using a little-noticed provision in the Patriot Act allowing interim appointments, Gonzales gave the post to Timothy Griffin -- who had been both an operative for the Republican National Committee and a deputy to senior White House advisor Karl Rove -- in what many believe was a maneuver to sidestep the traditional Senate confirmation process for U.S. attorneys.

More recently, U.S. attorney Carol Lam, who is best known for nailing corrupt Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and his partners in crime, was replaced on Feb. 15 by Karen P. Hewitt, who according to a Justice Department press release, "will serve on an interim basis until a United States Attorney is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate." According to an Op-Ed in Monday's New York Times, Hewitt has a résumé with "almost no criminal law experience" and is a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

While Cummins was first informed of his dismissal last June, it wasn't until Dec. 7 that Michael Battle, a top Justice Department official, informed the rest of the group of U.S. attorneys in phone calls that they would be required to step down. That group included Daniel Bogden in Nevada, Paul Charlton in Arizona, John McKay in Seattle, Carol Lam in San Diego, and David Iglesias in New Mexico -- all of whom had received positive job reviews before they were dismissed and some of whom are viewed by colleagues and law enforcement officials as exceptional leaders. Most of them have said publicly that they were never told of any management or policy problems by their superiors.

According to the former senior Justice Department official, one of the U.S. attorneys in the group was told by Battle on Dec. 7: "It's hard not to think you did something wrong when you get a call like this, but that's not always the case." Two other U.S. attorneys in the group, upon seeking clarification from superiors in Washington, were told by a different top Justice Department official that they were being pushed out to give other Bush appointees their posts. A current senior Justice Department official confirmed that one of those two was Bogden in Nevada.

When asked about those conversations with top officials, Bryan Roehrkasse, a public affairs spokesman for the Justice Department, declined to comment about "specific personnel matters."

Former officials, legal scholars and U.S. lawmakers from both parties have publicly questioned the administration's stated rationale for the firings and have suggested troubling theories about the real reasons for the purge, which experts say is without precedent. Some former Justice Department officials say they believe the administration's moves are a politically driven power grab -- aimed not only at a tighter grip on policy from Washington, but also at creating openings with which to reward their friends and build up a bench of conservative loyalists positioned to serve in powerful posts in future administrations.

"It's really remarkable to have a wholesale removal of an administration's own U.S. attorneys, particularly this deep into the term," said John Kroger, a federal prosecutor under Clinton and Bush who now teaches at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Ore. "Clearly there was a concerted decision made to ask a bunch of them to leave. It suggests a desire to more tightly control policy. With the Democrats in control of Congress, perhaps it's because this is one of the few levers of government they have left."

Many point to the Cummins firing as proof that the administration is lying. "It is simply not believable that these were all performance-based dismissals, and everyone knows it," said a veteran prosecutor who served for a decade in the Justice Department until 2005. He also noted that he found it interesting that half of the posts cleared out are in the Southwest, where immigration is a key issue.

Kroger added that a stint as U.S. attorney is often a springboard to federal judgeships or other prestigious appointments. "Being a U.S. attorney is a huge credential, one a lot of people would like to have," he said. "It certainly looks like they're clearing out spots to reward loyalists in the last two years of the administration."

To support their claim that the dismissals were performance related, Bush officials have pointed to one among the fired U.S. attorneys, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco, who has been widely reported to be a focus of management complaints. The firing of Margaret Chiara in Michigan, the eighth U.S. attorney caught up in the December purge, was not made public until last Friday. To date, no explanation for her dismissal has been provided by Chiara or administration officials, but the former senior Justice Department official confirmed she was asked to resign in December and was in negotiations to stay in her post.

Next page: Throwing out a top prosecutor in the war on terrorism; installing conservatives with close ties to the White House