If he gets even modest donor support, I can easily see Brownlee taking the AG nomination from Cuccinelli. This kind of thing forbodes against KC; he’d be on the wrong side of the who’s-the-tougher-Republican debate: http://goodbyefaisal.com/gills-terror-dossiers/safa-group/safa-group-donations-ken-cuccinelli-got-19-200-00-john-brownlee-got-zero

Meanwhile Brownlee has a nice victory story in his settlement against the Oxycontin makers - the kind of accessible story that can be spun to semiconservative NoVa voters pretty well.

Posted by Donald on 17 April 2008 @ 10pm

The News and Advance in Lynchburg stated he is thinking about running for AG.

Posted by Martha on 18 April 2008 @ 7am

Well, his tenure is almost certainly over come January, so I’d not be surprised (or blame him) if he’s cashing in now.

Posted by MB on 18 April 2008 @ 9pm

I hadn’t thought about it like that, but that’s a pretty good point.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 18 April 2008 @ 9pm

Well, his tenure is almost certainly over come January

Wha?!?! Are you suggesting that a Democrat in the White House would fire GOP-appointed U.S. Attorneys and replace them with loyal Democrats? The MSM has led us to believe that only Republicans do that. I’m shocked!

Posted by I.Publius on 19 April 2008 @ 6pm

Actually, there’s no reason to suspect that was his suggestion. They’re appointed by the president for four-year terms, which means that each president gets to reappoint an entire slate of U.S. attorneys. The Bush scandal was for firing attorneys (rather than failing to reappoint them) for failing to bring charges against Democratic politicians (rather than their political affiliations). It’s the president’s prerogative to make appointments based on party affiliation.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 19 April 2008 @ 7pm

Who said anything about Democrats, Pub? That’s a fine sense of confidence you have in your candidate.

As Waldo notes, US Attorney appointments are for four year terms - Brownlee’s 2001 appt runs out next year (October, technically). And even if that wasn’t the case, it wouldn’t change things. I know it’s pointless to try and reason with your purposeful ignorance, I’d point out that every Administration - Republican or Democrat, fills every appointed office with its own people when it comes to power. There are very few holdovers. If McCain wins in November, you can expect that 95% of US Attorneys (all same-party appointees, natch) will be replaced in the following year. You can pretend that there’s no distinction between this and Bush’s actions, but . . . well, I guess one more delusion won’t make a difference.

Posted by MB on 19 April 2008 @ 8pm

They’re appointed by the president for four-year terms

No, there is no such thing as a “term” for U.S. Attorneys. They serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be replaced at any time. It’s most common that they resign after elections to make it convenient for the incoming president, but presidents can (and have before GWB) dismiss them whenever they wish.

Posted by I.Publius on 20 April 2008 @ 8pm

No, there is no such thing as a “term” for U.S. Attorneys.

Sure there is. It’s spelled out explicitly in 28 U.S.C. § 541(b):

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 April 2008 @ 9pm

Yes, that statutory term still exists, and it’s utterly meaningless. Section (b) contradicts itself. The four-year term simply doesn’t exist. A U.S. Attorney serves until he or she is replaced. If the president wants them to continue, they will simply not appoint a successor. If the president wants them replaced, the president can replace the U.S. Atty at any time.

The four-year term in the code gives some semblance of order to the process, but it’s a mistake to think of it in any way similar to the terms that elected officials serve. Completely different animal. Bottom line - they serve at the pleasure of the president.

Posted by I.Publius on 21 April 2008 @ 6am

What is the back story on Brownlee and his lack of support from Warner and Webb for the Federal judgeships he coveted? I know his pursuit of the D-Day memorial director was seen as obsessive in the face of no criminal intent, and he hounded Dr. Cecil Knox through endless prosecution. Is this guy a pair of pliers short of a toolset?

Posted by Bubby on 21 April 2008 @ 11am