Blogs and Stories
Obama Should Clean House at Justice
Charles Rex Arbogast / AP Photo
Bush took firing U.S. Attorneys to a whole new level so it would be poetic justice if President Obama purged the DoJ.
It should be one of the earliest and easiest decisions for President Obama. But don't count on it.
Next week, the new president should immediately ask all 93 U.S. attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in the country, to resign. If they refuse, fire them. Many of those prosecutors will have been honest, hardworking, apolitical public servants. And yet they should still get the boot.
What? Isn't that to repeat the partisan sins of Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzalez improperly seeking to stack the legal decks by firing U.S. Attorneys whose politics they don't appreciate? Isn't it precisely the sort of politicization of the Justice Department that people like me decried for months? Nope. It's the remedy.
Just because the Justice Department became "Bush League," doesn’t mean Obama has to start out in the legal minors.
After eight years of making obscenity and adult pornography the Justice department priority at the expense of pursuing hardened criminals, it's time to redirect and thoroughly disinfect the tattered department. Attorney General nominee Eric Holder had this to say about the DoJ a year ago: "There is a crisis of confidence that the nation has with regard to the department." Okay, so why not start anew when he takes charge?
It's hardly radical to suggest that Obama replace these political appointees. Bill Clinton did it. So did Bush. But it's also not even remotely hypocritical to recognize the basic difference between the Bush team firing eight U.S. Attorneys because they had the audacity to retain their independence and refused to allow the administration to manipulate them, and a new President making a broad decision to name all new political appointees to new terms. One is corrupt, the other is, well, politics. (Assuming there is such a distinction at all.)
The National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, which represents 5300 of some of the smartest and best young lawyers in the nation, is urging Obama not to fire the bosses en masse. "We respectfully submit that, while this approach may be politically expedient, it's not consistent with the best interest of administration of the United States Attorney's offices and the advancement of their mission." Politically expedient? Explosive is more like it. Obama would be blasted from both sides if he forced out certain high profile, popular U.S. Attorneys like Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago who is currently prosecuting Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. In fact, to stem any potential criticism Obama has already indicated that he will keep Fitzgerald.
Furthermore, the "administration" of the office, and the "advancement" of an amorphous "mission," while admirable goals, should not frighten Obama into submission. Cleaning house now sends a clear message both symbolic and practical about the real mission—a newfound commitment to the apolitical administration of justice by the most qualified lawyers. Bipartisanship need not be a casualty either. Refuse to accept Fitzgerald's resignation. Encourage some other top Republicans to apply. Convince former Bush Deputy Attorney General James Comey, an honest and staunch Republican forced out because he challenged the administration, to return. Who says a clean slate need be synonymous with appointing only Democrats?
Others have suggested that U.S. attorneys handling certain high profile cases, particularly political ones, should complete those cases to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Maybe. But most important, this new administration should not refuse to act for fear some might unjustly compare them to Gonzo's gang. Just because the Justice Department became "Bush League," doesn’t mean Obama has to start out in the legal minors.
As for those fearless advocates kicked to the curb? Shed no tears, even in this economic environment they will be quickly snapped up by law firms or businesses seeking to pay them many multiples of their comparatively paltry government salaries (and some of them won't be worth it).
So with all of this in mind, how would Obama position this sort of "radical" move? Ummm, maybe something like, "change you can believe in"?
Dan Abrams is the CEO of Abrams Research, an attorney, and the Chief Legal Analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. He launched Abrams Research in November 2008 and is now an outside consultant to NBC.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Bush's Lawyers Strike Back
Dan Abrams is CEO of Abrams Research, an attorney, and chief legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.
The Man Who Got New York Back
Dan Abrams is CEO of Abrams Research, an attorney, and chief legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.
Blago on the Offensive
Dan Abrams is CEO of Abrams Research, an attorney, and chief legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.
Issywise
Here is a TV talking-head advocating "poetic justice" as a basis of policy. Vaporous pontification personified: the very embodiment of the shallowness of the electronic media drawn out in letters. Hell, even Karl Rove isn't that stupid.
Banjo1
Uh, didn't Abrams get the can tied to him at MSNBC? No wonder the guy wants to see heads roll, It's the misery-loves-company principle at work.
MetryJen
I'm sorry, Dan, but I must respectfully disagree. The Obama administration's overarching theme of change related directly to fairness. It was not fair for Bush to fire US attorneys because of politics, and it would not be fair for Obama to mass fire, either. There ARE good members of the DOJ out there, working hard. Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago, as you mentioned, or Jim Letten here in New Orleans. As tempting as it might be to clean the slate, it still isn't the right thing to do. Give each attorney a thorough review, and keep those that are doing well.
Cforchange
Here's a TV talking head who obviously lives on the right side of the tracks meaning it's safe but most likely many ridiculous forclosures. Dan please stay in fairyland and don't interfere with reality. My DOJ is in the middle of many projects that directly impact public safety.
Politics should have nothing to do with public safety.
jeannebridgforth
I'm glad Dan is back and in writing.
nodrama
Right on, Dan!
It's the philosophy that has to change, and getting rid of the butt-kissers and resume builders who head the Justice Department is a start.
I wish I had $1 for everytime I hear a US Attorney, Assistant US Attorney or law school professor (usually a former Assistant US Attorney) pat themselves on the back for the "sacrifice" that they are making by "serving" the public. The true picture is that they are reasonably well paid and almost all of them are looking down the line to the big paydays that they will receive when they sell their contacts in the Justice Department to big law firms.
I'm looking for a Justice Department and an FBI that will stop holding press conferences to prejudice the rights of defendants and that will stop sending out press releases trumpeting cases when they are filed.
Abrams, Shakespeare ... They had it about right. "Fire the lawyers (ah ... the US Attorneys and the toadies that staff the Department of Justice."
Aelora
I am going to have to agree with MetryJen above. I'd much rather a thorough review of each individual be done, and those questionable in meeting the standards that should be met by all of in those in the DOJ be let go. To me, it's a lot like the uproar over Obama inviting Warren for the invocation at the Inauguration - "Change" is NOT about doing it the way it's always been done except with your signature. "Change" would be actually keeping and hiring those best suited for the job, not just following the rules of politics. Filling the DOJ with those most devoted to restoring a fair and just legal system within our government. I agree that Obama needs to do some house cleaning the moment he gets in, but I don't think a 100% cleansing is required. No matter how much your "Bush League Justice" and "Why America Hates Washington" segments used to make me want to stick my fingers in my ears and sing "Lalalala", I've got to believe there are plenty of good people at the DOJ.
JD92840
A serious review of each Judge would be the best move!
Look at their records only, NOT their political views, unless of course their political views interferre with their judicial conduct.
Some if not most of these judges are damn good ones and this country needs more of them!
Bluejessamine
Dan is right.
The politicalization and corruption at the Department of Justice goes beyond the U.S.Attorneys - on to the Assistant U.S.Attorneys. And probably beyond them.
How many victims of Civil Rights and/or White Collar crimes have been further victimized by the Bush DOJ?
The Department of Justice has failed to investigate many crimes because their priorities have been fighting the war on terror, that is when they weren't busy exercising the DOJ as a political arm of the White House.
Yesterday in his confirmation hearing Eric Holder agreed that America is at war with terrorist and will continue to the fight to keep America safe, as he should. But while the DOJ continues to use FBI Agents to fight the war on terrror, Americans suffer in other areas of the Justice system.
Dan Abrams is right when he says "Fire them all", and perhaps in Obama's Stimulus package and in creating new jobs he should double the size of the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice is supposed to represent the American people.
maxxine
Dan, I totally agree with you. Fire each and every-one of them and start from scratch. I agree that people have lost faith in the justice system, what a perfect way to restore people's faith. It really would be "change you can believe in."
xbainx
Banjo1 is working for Fox News, so feel free to ignore him.
Banjo1
xbainx is right. I am Rupert Murdoch during office hours. Alan Colmes was my butt boy until he lost his looks.
schmuck281
Sure, fire all the attorneys and hire new ones. Clinton did. Then hire only those who are loyal Party members.
Yeah, Bush would have got a huge amount of flak for that and the newspapers would have scrutinized every pick to see if his grandfather had given money to the Republicans in 1958. But you're The One and the loyal scribes will only look to see if any of your critics have donated money to a "hate" group like the Republicans.
Choose wisely. Remember how the Clinton Justice Department made those campaign financing problems go away for Bill and Al? Just sayin,' you know?
xbainx
What I mean is, you are the first to jump on to any Republican issue you can, and discount anyone agreeing with a liberal article as brainwashed. The beautiful thing about the Republicans is that once they preach enough people like you take up the cause without being paid or compensated in any way. You don't care about discourse. You are just trying to enrage people for a laugh. Don't pretend your opinion is valuable.
America voted out Republicans in 2006 and again in 2008. Keep up the rhetoric and you won't be a party at all by 2010. And please do run Sarah Palin. That will be the end of you rich loving hypocrites at last.
alibe60
Is this a trial baloon so 0bama can fire Patrick Fitzgerald and get Tony Rezko out of jail and implicating Obama in the pay for pay ways of Chicago politicians? Clever
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.