Technicalities

In the alumni section of this month's Tulane Lawyer it is announced that John Timothy Griffin was sworn in as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas back in December. The blurb candidly admits that he was serving under an appointment by the Attorney General which is shorthand for " not confirmed by the Senate."


Curious. I guess when one gets appointed to such a position one has to tell it on the mountain. It is part of the public record and all. But in my line of work, one learns to parse language. He was the duly appointed US Attorney under the law at the time which allowed the President to insert these guys into the office without Senate confirmation under the Patriot Act. The law has been changed since the defenestration of 7-8 US Attorneys for what seemed to be purely political reasons.


But, contrary to the bleating of certain media and political types, his appointment to the office was strictly legal at the time despite the fact that it turned out to be impolitic. Strictly legal is strictly legal. Here's an example.


I once pissed off a Federal Judge in another state who threatened to find me in contempt of court based upon advice I had given someone about honoring a subpoena. After cooling my jets for 3 days in court he allowed as how "technically" I was correct. Which was great. "Technically correct" was all I needed to get around that problem. Because if I was technically correct I was not in contempt of court. Here's some free advice. When confronted with a close question about whether to comply with a subpoena issued by a Federal Court, you should err on the side of compliance. It will make your life easier. Trust me.


Anyway, since I was technically correct I was not in contempt. Similarly speaking, since Tim Griffin was technically and therefore legally the US Attorney, why did he qualify the blurb he sent in by saying he was serving under an appointment by the AG?


Since we are speaking of technicalities, it is a moot point. Griffin is gone as of last week. His replacement is in the works. And you can bet that whoever they appoint to replace him will get stuck before the Senate Judiciary Committee.


But I wonder why he felt the need to qualify the blurb in the Tulane Lawyer?


Interesting.