Utterly Shameless

This bunch in the executive branch really does see itself as above the law.

It looks like the spineless Democrats are going to allow Gonzo to dodge a proverbial bullet and keep his job, so what's his reaction to investigations into his politicizing the Justice Department?

To politicize the Justice Department even further:

Gonzales described what he delicately calls "a more vigorous and a little bit more formal process" for annually evaluating prosecutors. What that means, as he explained it, is hauling in every U.S. attorney for a meeting to hear, among other things, politicians' beefs against the prosecutor.

If that should happen, expect the fair-mindedness and independence Americans still count on from their Justice Department to slip.

In testimony to Congress and comments at the National Press Club, Gonzales framed the meetings as a way of improving communications. But it also looks a lot like a way to remind recalcitrant U.S. attorneys what the home team expects.

On Friday, a spokesman for Gonzales insisted in a written statement that the attorney general has no intention of holding one-on-ones with every U.S. attorney.

"The view of the overwhelming majority of U.S. attorneys is that they do not want a new, formalized review process -- including one that might involve annual one-on-one meetings between each U.S. attorney and the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General. We have listened and agree with these views," the spokesman said.

But later Friday a senior Justice Department official said one-on-one meetings are still on the table. "We haven't ruled that out," the official said.

Here's what Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee last month about what he would do to avoid another uproar in the event he wants to fire more prosecutors:

"At least once a year every United States attorney is going to sit down with either myself or the deputy attorney general, and we're going to have a very candid conversation about issues and problems in their districts," Gonzales said. "If I've heard of complaints from a member of Congress, it gives me an opportunity or the deputy attorney general an opportunity to tell the U.S. attorney what we're hearing."

For an idea of the effect that "what we're hearing" can have, consider the case of former U.S. Atty. David Iglesias of New Mexico. Iglesias was fired after Republican Sen. Pete Domenici -- his one-time sponsor -- complained repeatedly to Gonzales and the White House that Iglesias was reluctant to prosecute vote fraud cases, a sensitive topic in a state George W. Bush lost by 366 votes in 2000.

Domenici also phoned Iglesias last fall and asked him if a certain high-profile Democrat was going to be indicted before the election, an inquiry Iglesias told lawmakers made him feel "leaned on."

Gonzales said he fired Iglesias based on "what I understood to be the consensus recommendation of the senior leadership in the department," but he offered no specifics -- except Domenici's complaints.

What, exactly, would a sit-down with the attorney general have been expected to yield in Iglesias' case?

Whatever Gonzales does to review prosecutors' performances will, by design, be murky, in the interests of maximizing executive power, the attorney general has indicated.