The Journal’s Scott Sexton weighs in on the U.S. attorneys controversy:
On a practical level, injecting partisan politics into the appointment (and retention) of U.S. attorneys in such a public way can cast doubt on other federal prosecutions.
The cases in point can be found right down Interstate 40 in Raleigh, where U.S. attorneys successfully prosecuted several political-corruption cases in recent years, most notably Meg Scott Phipps, a former state commissioner of agriculture, and Jim Black, a former speaker of the N.C. House of Representatives).
Phipps and Black were Democrats. The U.S. attorneys who oversaw their cases – Frank Whitney on Phipps and George Holding on Black – were Bush-appointed Republicans.
It is hard to argue that prosecuting officials for taking cash to rig a contract for the state fair (Phipps) or in exchange for passing certain legislation (Black) was politically motivated. Still, knowing that partisan pressure has been applied elsewhere could attach a whiff of taint to legitimate cases.
Round and round this latest “scandal” goes, where it stops nobody knows. Others have said this before, but I’ll repeat it: There is no way anyone can justify Clinton’s firing of all 93 U.S. attorneys in 1993 as any but a political statement. Definitely a whiff of taint there. But when it comes to the Clintons, people tend to hold their noses.
