Resignation of US Attorney's

        The Role of the United States Attorney is as the chief prosecutor in their judiciary district. He or she serves as the representative and administration head for the Office of the United States Attorney.  Their responsibilities are described in the United States Code Section 28 USC §547 which states,

“Except as otherwise provided by law, each United States attorney, within his district, shall  -

1) prosecute for all offenses against the United States;

2) prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings in which the United States is concerned;

3) appear in behalf of the defendants in all civil action, suits or proceedings pending in his district against collectors, or other officers of the revenue or customs for any act done by them or for the recovery of any money exacted by or paid to these officers, and by them paid into the Treasury;

4) institute and prosecute proceedings for the collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures incurred for violation of any revenue law, unless satisfied on investigation that justice does not require the proceedings; and

5) make such reports ad the Attorney General may direct.”

The United States Attorney fulfills these duties with the help of his or her office and the Executive Office of the United States Attorney (EOUSA).  The EOUSA provides administrative assistance to the U.S. Attorneys and makes budgetary decisions for the respective offices with the help of the Office of the Attorney General.

Every Office of the United States Attorney is headed by a single United States Attorney and staffed with Assistant United States Attorneys. It is the duty of these Assistant United States Attorneys to investigate, prosecute and represent the United States in criminal and civil matters. Most offices are broken down into separate divisions which may include the criminal division, the civil division, and the appeals division. The criminal and civil divisions may be broken down further by the nature of the crime or offense.  The United States Attorney rarely prosecutes or represents the Untied States in cases, but rather makes the decision as to what cases will be argued or investigated. The U.S. Attorney manual guides the role of the U.S. Attorney. With nine sections, it details the organization and function of the office, the types of criminal and civil charges that can be brought against s person or entity along with the appellate procedure. The manual also contains death penalty request forms, courtroom procedures and lawful investigative procedures. This manual is more or less The Bible for a United States Attorney.

The controversy over the United States Attorneys began last year. On December 7, 2006, seven of the Untied States Attorneys were fired without cause or justification. Alberto Gonzales, the former Attorney General, gave no reason whatsoever as to why these seven, all of whom had been appointed by George W. Bush, were asked to resign quietly.  A year prior, two other United States Attorneys were dismissed under similar circumstances. These firings and the tight lips of the Department of Justice have caused an up-roar in the judicial and political community of the United States.  This controversy has been labeled as purely political and Congress has taken the initiative to let the Executive Branch know that their discrete actions are unacceptable. The Senate Judiciary Committed launched an investigation, and subpoenaed a number of the Attorney General’s staff. Several e-mails were produced that detailed the desire to fire several U.S. Attorneys as early as March 2005. There are reports that Kyle Sampson, a former staff member for Alberto Gonzales, created a criterion by which to grade U.S. Attorneys on their performance. However, the criterion seemed to weigh political views and affiliations just as importantly as job performance. Other statements and e-mails have been brought to light that have reiterated this political point.

        When the Senate began its investigation it eased the mind of many Americans. People thought that we’d get answers and the Attorney General would be held responsible for his unjustified actions. However, the Senate Judiciary hearings have produced little information as witnesses who testify claim Executive Privilege when the questions pry too deeply into the cause of the firings. This excuse has also created a controversy because the Bush Administration has made some claims that they are not involved in the decision to fire these U.S. Attorneys. If the Bush Administration claims ignorance, then the justification of Executive Privilege cannot stand. Since the Senate has launched their investigation, many members of the Department of Justice have resigned, the most notable being the Attorney General. Although Gonzales did not resign until just recently, Congress had been demanding his resignation for some time. Before Gonzales, at the peak of this controversy, several of his staff resigned including Kyle Sampson. Michael Battle, the Director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorney, the person who actually communicated the firings to the U.S. Attorneys resigned in March. 

        Carol Lam was one of the seven United States Attorneys fired on December 7, 2006. She was the United States Attorney for the Southern District of California. After an excellent reputation for her tough-on-crime attitude, Lam was asked to resign for undisclosed reasons. Many speculated it was because she headed the investigation and prosecution of Republican Representative Randy Cunningham, a high profile case about his corruptive dealings in military contracts. Many speculated that this was the reason for her firing and it was masked by the excuse that the district was not pouring enough money into border crimes. As a result, Lam was replaced by an interim United States Attorney, Karen Hewitt. Hewitt was not second-in-command after Lam. She was third. Many in the Southern District of California believed that the second-in-command was not chosen because he was too closely affiliated with Lam. Since Lam’s departure, there hasn’t been as much change as one would expect in the office.  The policies that Lam put into place have mostly stayed the same and their criminal division has not cut back on its investigation of political corruption.

        Many have speculated as to the reasons behind the firings of the U.S. Attorneys. One theory suggests that the U.S. Attorneys were launching investigations and prosecuting too many Republicans for corruption and not enough Democrats. Another says that the U.S. Attorneys did not follow the suggestion of the Attorney General to focus on political issues that did not include office holders but rather voter fraud. Whatever the reasons, these firings are clearly the result of politics rather than job performance.  Six of the seven fired United States Attorneys were from Western States: Washington, Arizona, Nevada, two districts in California and New Mexico. Timothy Griffin, a former aide for Karl Rove was appointed as the interim U.S. Attorney to replace the former, fired U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

        During his resignation speech, Gonzales took responsibility for the mistakes he made. However, this veiled apology came too little or too late for many Americans. Most hope that the Senate will not cease its investigations into this matter and at some point the Executive Branch will be held responsible for their actions.

        The possibility of political influence determining who gets prosecuted by the federal government is disheartening, as well as a clear contradiction of the law that Alberto Gonzales was sworn to uphold.  But, if this corruption exists, the problem seems less systemic than a tool in the broad arsenal of political power; using the justice system under certain circumstances to promote political ends.  Unfortunately, many federal issues for which U.S. Attorney prosecutes have political ramifications, thus making it difficult for politicians, Republican or Democrat, not to meddle in the type of prosecution the U.S. Attorney’s offices pursue.

        The U.S. Attorney’s Office is bound to bring and defend lawsuits in civil and criminal matters on behalf of the United States.  The firing of the seven U.S. Attorneys for a seemingly political purpose exposes a broader problem, which indicts the U.S. Attorney for pursuing lawsuits to advance political ends.  It is undeniable that at the highest end of the U.S. Attorney’s office, politics determine, at least in part, what gets prosecuted.  But investigations and subpoenas is not going to solve the broader problem.  Political appointment equals owing the people that put you there something.  At the very least, it suggests one shares the broad goals of the party which puts him or her in power.  If our nation disfavors federal prosecutions based on narrow political agendas, don’t have politicians appointing U.S. Attorneys.  The solution is one term, eight years, and the people elect that individual based on his or her record.  Why remove the people from a decision that is rightfully theirs, especially where the political appointments are being wielded to force U.S. Attorney’s into lockstep with their appointer’s agenda.