Looking back over today’s testimony what stands out aren’t just the big lies that have been alleged but the small ones. In particular I’m thinking about cases in which Justice Department appointees said one thing only to have one or more of the US Attorneys come back and say the statements were simply false.
For instance, William E. Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General said that one of the reasons the Department had relieved Mr. Cummins of Arkansas was that he’d “indicated” earlier that he did not plan to complete his term. Not so, said Cummins, when his turn came to testify. According to Cummins, the only time he’d said anything like that was after he’d already stepped down.
“I was trying to be discreet,” he said.
In other words, he was trying to paper over what had happened and provide his DOJ bosses with an alibi. And Moschella took Cummins’ white lie and tried to use it as a rationale for his dismissal. (This was flagged in Paul Kiel’s running commentary on the House hearing.)
Earlier Moschella went down a list of the various fired US Attorneys’ deficiencies.
Let me quote from Paul Kiel’s running coverage …
Of Carol Lam, he said that her gun prosecution numbers “were are the bottom of the list.” And that her border related prosecutions “didn’t stack up.”
Of John McKay, he said that the department didn’t really have a policy difference, but that they were concerned with the manner “in which he went about advocating particular policies,” whatever that means.
Of Cummins, he said that he was not fired for performance reasons. He added that Cummins had indicated that he was not going to finish his term, and that Griffin was “interested in the USA position.”
Of Bogden, he said that “given the importance of [Bogden’s] district,” that the department felt they needed “renewed energy, renewed vigor” in that office in order to “take it to the next level.”
Of Iglesias, he complained that he’d “delegated to his first assistant the running of the office.”
Of Charlton, he said that Charlton had had a policy of “taping FBI confessions,” a policy that had ramifications throughout the government and that was “completely contrary” to the department’s policy.
These claims didn’t “stack up” very well, as Moschella might say, under committee questioning.
For instance, did anyone ever speak to Lam about the problems with her gun or border prosecutions? Moschella said former Deputy Attorney General James Comey (who’s been very critical of the firings) spoke to Lam about the gun cases. Remember, Comey left in 2005. And the border prosecutions? Moschella didn’t know if anyone ever had.
Let’s be clear. The DOJ needn’t establish a lengthy or any paper trail to justify firing a US Attorney. Maybe they didn’t like the way she prosecuted gun crimes. Or maybe her bosses at Main Justice just didn’t like how she went about her job. Maybe they just plain didn’t like her. That’s fine. And while it would be irregular to fire a US Attorney in the middle of a president’s term for no evident wrongdoing, it would not in itself be improper. None of the USAs, as they’re called, are irreplaceable. And they do serve at the president’s pleasure.
The issue here is different. There is a clear and growing body of evidence that at least three of these firees were canned for not allowing politics to dictate their prosecution of political corruption cases. Or, to put it more bluntly, for not indicting enough Democrats or indicting too many Republicans. Which is to say they were fired for not perverting justice.
In the face of that evidence the administration has come up with a series of changing and often contradicatory alternative explanations, which range from the frivolous to the ridiculous.
The administration isn’t at war with the fired attorneys or Congress. They’re at war with the obvious.
