With the US Attorneys purge coming to a head, I went over to the Washington Post website and read some of the emails between White House counsel Harriet Miers and Gonzales's Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson.  Page 3 stuck out at me.

Page 3 was an email from Sampson to Miers, describing his system for marking which US Attorneys should be kept or pushed out:

----- 

     From: Sampson, Kyle

     Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 5:42 PM

     To: 'Harriet Miers'

     Subject: U.S. Attorneys 

     To be clear, putting aside the question of expiring terms, the analysis on the chart I gave you is as follows:

     bold = Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and the Attorney General.

     strikethrough = Recommend removing; weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.

     nothing = No recommendation; have not distinguished themselves either positively or negatively. 

----- 

Take a good look at that first category, the one where Sampson bolded the names ("strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and the Attorney General"). 

I just took the LSATs back in February, and I spent a lot of time working with those prep books.  Every LSAT prep book, in highlighting the importance of reading every passage closely, makes sure to mention the key difference between the conjunctions "and" & "or" within a sentence. 

For example, if a law says that a rented property can be occupied by 'the renter OR his family,' then the renter's brother could sublet the place, but if it stipulated 'the renter AND his family,' then the person on the lease would have to be in the house.  The difference between "and" & "or" is massive and critical, and any lawyer in America, especially the Attorney General's Chief of Staff, knows that by rote.

Therefore, let's review that first category of Sampson's.  In order to receive a recommendation that you stay on the job as US Attorney, it is not enough to show exceptional competence in managing those attorneys under you in your office.  It is not enough to adhere strictly to the law and to prosecute every offender as best you can to protect the public interest.

No, by any reading of that email, a US Attorney would have to be deemed by Sampson to be sufficiently loyal to the Administration to be allowed to remain on the job.

Now, I'm not arguing that the President can't fire US Attorneys for political reasons--he can legally fire them for whatever reason he wants.  But this goes well beyond what the President can and cannot legally do.  This is about what the President and Attorney General should do to best protect the public interest.

One of the key points in this debacle has been the pressure elected officials put on some US Attorneys, most notably David Iglesias, to prosecute cases based on political considerations.  Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson have both been found to have contacted Iglesias about pursuing cases that would benefit them politically (notice in that last link how a DoJ spokeman flatly denied Iglesias's allegation?  Notice how those first two links proved that spokesman completely wrong?  Notice how many questions about that Gonzales fielded at today's presser?), and then to have contacted the White House to try and have Iglesias removed.

So, while it might not be against any law for the White House to fire any prosecutors who fail to be appropriately responsive to Republican lawmakers seeking to use law enforcement for political purposes, it's probably not a very good idea.

(I don't think I even need to talk about what happens when a US Attorney has the temerity to actually prosecute Republican lawmakers and contributors, do I?)

So remember, if you want to keep that job as US Attorney, you better not look too closely at anyone with an (R) after their name, because it could be hazardous to your career prospects.

This is not illegal.

But this is probably a High Crime.