If the shocking news that President Trump fired U.S. Attorney for Eastern Virginia Erik Siebert sounds oddly familiar, it should. As you may recall, in 2006 and 2007, the Bush administration engaged in a political purge of 9 U.S. prosecutors which a 2008 DOJ Inspector General’s report labeled “arbitrary and “fundamentally flawed.” But as it turned out, special prosector Nora Dannehy appointed by Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey did not bring charges in the dismissal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias because there was “insufficient evidence” that the Bush White House sought to illegally influence an investigation that could harm Democrats.

Which is what makes Donald Trump’s interference with the Justice Department completely different that the Bush imbroglio. After all, “harming” political opponents like New York Attorney General Letitia James, Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) and former FBI Director James Comey is President Trump’s explicitly stated intent.

Now, each of the 93 United States Attorneys serves “at the pleasure of the President.” It is not unusual for an incoming administration to quickly replace most or all of the USA’s, especially if the previous President was from the other party. As Joyce Vance recalled President Obama’s remarks to the incoming U.S. attorneys he had just selected:

‘I appointed you but you don’t serve me. You serve the American people. And I expect you to act with independence and integrity.”

But his predecessor, George W. Bush, had different expectations. As the 2006 midterm elections, Bush’s Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took the very unusual step of sacking 9 U.S. attorneys for a range of purely political considerations. David Iglesias in Arizona was axed because he supposedly was not sufficiently zealous in prosecuting illegal immigration claims. In Western Washington, John McKay was dismissed for not pursuing voter fraud allegations raised by Republicans after the 2004 gubernatorial race there. And in Arkansas, U.S. Attorney Brad Cummins got the boot just to make way for Karl Rove aide, Tim Griffin. (Current CNN commentator Scott Jennings knows this history well, as he was involved in Cummins’ firing and later claimed executive privilege in refusing to answer questions during Congressional hearings.) Under mounting pressure from both Senate Republicans and Democrats, AG Alberto Gonzales resigned in September 2007, but not before testifying 74 times in a single hearing “I don’t recall” and proclaiming:

"I would never ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or that in any way would jeopardize an ongoing investigation."

But that’s not what Special Prosecutor Dannehy found. Chosen in September 2008 in the wake of the Inspector General’s report into the Bush prosecutors’ purge, Dannehy was directed by Gonzales’ successor Michael Mukasey to “ultimately to determine whether any prosecutable offense was committed with regard to the removal of a U.S. Attorney or the testimony of any witness related to the U.S. Attorney removals.” As the New York Times reported on July 21, 2010, Dannehy’s investigation found ethical missteps, but not criminal behavior:

In the end, Ms. Dannehy concluded that while the politically motivated firing of Mr. Iglesias violated Justice Department principles, it was not a crime and did not warrant criminal charges. She also concluded that misleading statements made by the former attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, and others at the Justice Department did not rise to the level of a crime, according to a summary of the investigation sent to Congress by the Justice Department.

Importantly, the Dannehy report explained what would constitute actual criminal conduct in firing U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons. As the Times summarized it:

In her investigation, Ms. Dannehy appeared to draw a legal distinction between firing Mr. Iglesias for political reasons, which she said violated Justice Department principles, and doing so to influence an investigation that could harm Democrats, which would be illegal.

There was “insufficient evidence” that anyone in the White House or the Justice Department sought to pressure Mr. Iglesias to bring a criminal case before the 2006 election, nor was there evidence that the Justice Department tried to fill his spot with a prosecutor who would be more inclined to bring a political prosecution, the Justice Department said in its summary of Ms. Dannehy’s investigation. [Emphasis mine.]

By that standard, President Donald Trump has clearly crossed the line between unethical and illegal. Trump, after all, has not shied away from targeting his political enemies real and perceived from legal retribution. After Siebert’s office made revealed there was simply no evidence to substantiate the dubious mortgage fraud allegations against New York AG Letitia James, Trump thundered that James is “very guilty of something” and said of Siebert, “I want him out.” Importantly, while Trump and his Federal House Finance Corporation hatchet man William Pulte called for Siebert’s head, Attorney General Pam Bondi and her number two Todd Blanche defended him. Combined with Siebert’s “failure” to charge James Comey with any crimes, Trump had had enough of him and, apparently, Attorney General Bondi. Trump’s public demand for action by Bondi against his foes—now famously memorialized on Truth Social—represents a confession of the very kinds of crimes Dannehy claimed she could not prove against the Bush White House 15 years ago:

Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, “same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.” Then we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That’s why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT

Trump’s rant may or may not constitute an open and shut case of conspiracy, obstruction of justice or misuse of office, but it certainly is a powerful starting point for an investigation.

To be sure, Trump’s defenders will claim the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling that the President enjoys immunity from prosecution arising from his “official acts” gives him legal cover here. The counter argument, of course, is that directing which cases and which potential defendants should be prosecuted is well beyond the scope of the President’s official duties. Those are not and should not be his decisions to make. Regardless, as Steve Benen explains today, at a minimum “Trump’s directive to AG Bondi should be seen as an impeachment-level scandal.”

After all, as Donald Trump himself declared in all caps, justice must be served.