Event Summary
The dismissals of eight United States attorneys have brought Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under intense scrutiny. As more details come to light, broader questions regarding the influence of presidential policy and partisan politics on the work at the Justice Department are being asked.
Judicial Issues Forum
Event Information
When
Friday, April 20, 2007
10:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Where
Stein Room
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC
Directions
Also in this Series
No. 18
The Brookings Institution, June 27, 2008
No. 17
American University Washington College of Law, February 01, 2008
No. 16
The Brookings Institution, January 07, 2008
View All ยป
On April 20, the Brookings Institution continued its Judicial Issues Forum series with a discussion on lessons learned from the attorney general firings and other legal controversies. Panelists discussed the trial and conviction of former White House Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby; the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act; prosecution of voter fraud; and the replacement of all US attorneys by the Clinton Administration in 1993.
Panelists included two former Justice Department officials under President Clinton, Neal Katyal, professor of law at Georgetown University, and Robert Litt, partner at Arnold & Porter LLP. Additionally, Benjamin Wittes, Brookings guest scholar; George Terwilliger, former Deputy Attorney General under George H.W. Bush; and Timothy Flanigan, former deputy to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, provided commentary.
Stuart Taylor, Jr., a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings and a writer for National Journal and Newsweek, moderated the panel.
Transcript
ROBERT LITT: A President is elected to pursue certain policies and he has the right to reshape the entire Executive Branch in furtherance of those policies. He can emphasize or deemphasize child pornography, terrorism, drugs, guns, environmental enforcement. He can choose to focus civil rights enforcement on the rights of minorities or the rights of majorities. All of that is appropriate. But what the President should not do in my view is use the power of law enforcement to bring investigations and prosecutions for the purpose of influencing elections.
I understand that this is not a clear line. This is one of those judgment and balancing tests. Presumably, for example, the present administration emphasizes child pornography prosecutions not only because they think that child pornography is a bad thing and it needs to be deterred and punished, and I don't have any quarrel with the sincerity of that belief, but also because they think it helps them in elections, and I think that's okay.
On the other hand, I think that everybody probably agrees that what the U.S. Attorney in Maryland did crossed the line when he sent a memo to all of his Assistants saying he wanted to have some political corruption indictments of Democrats before the election. In fact, the Department of Justice reprimanded him and took the step of saying that his office could not bring any such indictments without approval of the Department of Justice.
But I find troubling signs that this Department of Justice may not have the same view of the proper limitations on the use of its powers for partisan political ends that I do, and there are a wide variety of matters that have been talked about in the press in this regard.
View Full Transcript »
Participants
Moderator
Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution;
Columnist, National Journal; Contributor, Newsweek
Panelists
Fellow and Research Director in Public Law, Governance Studies
George Terwilliger
Partner, White & Case
Neal Katyal
Professor of Law, Georgetown University
Robert Litt
Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP
Timothy Flanigan
Former Deputy White House Counsel (2001-2002)