The AP reports that Alberto Gonzales has indicated that since March of 2006 (when the Patriot Act was reauthorized, with a little known subsection replacement that occurred during committee), eleven U.S. attorneys have resigned.

Eleven resignations within 9 months is not insignificant (except, of course, when there is a presidential changing of the guard), given that there are only 93 U.S. Attorneys, each in charge of one of the 93 U.S. districts.  The U.S. Attorneys' responsibilities, as head of their staffs and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs)  are, according to the DOJ website, as follows:

The United States Attorneys have three statutory responsibilities under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

• the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the Federal government;


• the prosecution and defense of civil cases in which the United States is a party; and


• the collection of debts owed the Federal government which are administratively uncollectible.

Each United States Attorney exercises wide discretion in the use of his/her resources to further the priorities of the local jurisdictions and needs of their communities. United States Attorneys have been delegated full authority and control in the areas of personnel management, financial management, and procurement.

According to Eggen, at least one administration official has indicated the firings are clearly political:

But there is also evidence that broader political forces are at work. One administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in discussing personnel issues, said the spate of firings was the result of "pressure from people who make personnel decisions outside of Justice who wanted to make some things happen in these places."

The Replacement U.S. Attorneys
There's been much speculation about the political agenda behind the firings:

• Refocus on the illegals in the battle against  illegal immigration?
• Sideline the investigations into possible political corruption by the likes of Cunningham, Abramoff, or Renzi in Arizona?
• Develop a farm team of young Republican political operatives in the western states?

McClatchy's Washington Bureau identified a number of the nominated/appointed attorneys, who are notable for being young (age range mid thirties to mid forties) and relatively inexperienced.  According to an earlier ePluribus Media Journal article, the Senate's Role in Nomination and Confirmation Process: A Brief History. Updated March 29, 2005 (warning, PDF file) for "hiring" a new U.S. Attorney is traditionally a 3-parter:  The senior senators from the President's part and from the state in which the district is located provide suggestions to the President; the President appoints a nominee; and the Senate confirms the appointment.

The President customarily takes the recommendation of the senators from the nominee's home state who are of the same party as the President. If there are no senators from the President's party, the President gets recommendations from party leaders in the state.

Indeed, the tradition of "senatorial courtesy," as it is called, has at times been so entrenched that if the President disregarded these nominations, the individual would never make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But as we saw just last week in the Gonzales interim appointment of Daniel Knauss as acting U.S. Attorney in Arizona, despite the recommendations of Republican Senators Kyl and McCain of Diane Humetewa, this administration seems determined to ignore the recommendations of even its own party.  Below, ePluribus Media has charted out what we currently know about the replacements.  Some, such as Tim Griffin in Arkansas, who was placed in Cummins' Arkansas District by Gonzales back in June of 2006,  was apparently directly positioned to take over as the U.S. Attorney, despite not being the recommendation of any within the Arkansas district.

To that end, we are compiling data on the replacement attorneys... as shown in the table below.

This administration and attorney general may be one of the most secretive ever. Admittedly not scientific, but a random snapshot of three months (either April or May) illustrates at least a lessening of the volume of communication. Under President Clinton, in April 2000, Janet Reno released approximately 75 press releases. Under President Bush, in roughly the same month, May 2003, and time frame, John Ashcroft released one third less, approximately 49 press releases. In May 2005, Alberto Gonzales issued 52 releases, also about one third less than Reno.

Given that, help us keep the spotlight on the Gonzales and the Department of Justice's process...watch that last column in the table above and see how many of the replacement nominees get sent to the Senate for confirmation. Nothing like a spotlight to change behavior.

Once again, Avahome did the heavy lifting on this story, with major support from Roxy, standingup and JeninRI. Others: kfred, greyhawk, silence, biblio, clammyc, wanderindiana, rayne today. On Kos -- DC Pol Sci, carolita, mbw, markettrustee... I know I am leaving some out...please let me know and I will add 'em.