1 of 2

Write now Article Tools

Implicit in arguments by Congress and included members of the respective Judiciary Committees is the notion that an underlying crime occurred in the removal of the 8 US Attorneys. Opponents point to "intimidation" or "leaning" by Senator Domenici (R-NM) and Representative Wilson (R-NM) as evidence that members disrupted criminal investigations. This of course - if it occurred as Chairman Leahy is depicting it - is illegal. He, however, has no evidence that this is so.

The larger issue at stake with regard to the flap over their removal is the right of the President to appoint and remove members of his administration that serve at his pleasure. US Attorneys fall within this job description. What part of serving at the pleasure of the President do Congressional Democrats not understand?

But detractors will argue that US-A's are different because they are non-political. This is nonsense. Carole Lam's predecessor, a Clinton appointee, was his Yale roommate and a former campaign activist. What is more, US Attorneys are suggested by each states respective Senator to ease confirmation. As with most positions originating in Washington, politics are unavoidable. This charge is doubly laughable when you consider Senator Schumer, the leading advocate of putting Attorney General Gonzales' head on a stake, is head of the funding machine that elects Senate Democrats. If politics should not be involved in this debate, than he shouldn't either.

Which brings me to the final point of offering up Administration officials to testify. There is such a thing as executive privilege. Although unmentioned in the Constitution it is implied in the separation of powers. To require Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, or any other White House counsel to testify would erode the Presidency and provide damaging precedent for future candidness in the Oval Office. Likewise, as former Speaker of the House Hastert has come to the defense of Rep. Jefferson's right against search of his House office (under the auspices of the "speech or debate" clause), members must respect the Executive's right to separation.

In short, what should have been seen as the unfortunate dismissal of public servants, has evolved into a fishing expedition to interrogate administration officials about their internal activities.

Learn more about this author, Christopher Toppings.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Commentary: Firing of US Attorneys under the Bush Administration?
We want to hear your view. Write now!