posted on March 7, 2007 08:51:18 AM new
Inside Bush's prosecutor purge
Why has the administration fired U.S. attorneys with sterling track records? To make room for its political loyalists, critics say, and exert its last shred of control.
By Mark Follman
Feb. 28, 2007 | Ever since the Bush administration shocked the legal community by dismissing eight U.S. attorneys in December, Justice Department leaders have vigorously denied that the firings were politically motivated. "I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in Senate testimony in early January. In a Feb. 6 hearing, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told lawmakers, "When I hear you talk about the politicizing of the Department of Justice, it's like a knife in my heart."
But at least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department official knowledgeable about their cases. That stands in contradiction to administration claims that the firings were related either to job performance or policy differences. A fourth U.S. attorney was told by a top Justice Department official that the dismissal in that attorney's case was not necessarily related to job performance. Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in New Mexico -- who officially steps down from his post on Wednesday, and who says he was never told by superiors about any problems with his work -- plans to go public with documentation of the achievements of his office.
"I never received any indication at all of a problem" regarding performance or policy differences, Iglesias told Salon on Monday. "That only leaves a third option: politics."
Iglesias acknowledged that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed without cause. "But it's really been maddening," he said, that the administration is pointing to job-performance issues to defend the firings. Iglesias, who was appointed by Bush in 2001, noted that his office got a "very positive" evaluation in the Justice Department's own internal ratings system as recently as last fall and that he received a letter from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys in January 2006 commending him for his "exemplary leadership in the Department's priority programs," including antiterrorism, community crime prevention and law enforcement coordination.
Iglesias said he was "shocked" by the phone call on Dec. 7 telling him to resign. He added, "I think Americans need to have full confidence that their federal prosecutors are above politics."
Suspicions about the unusual purge of eight U.S. attorneys in December exploded into the open across the legal community and on Capitol Hill after McNulty conceded in Senate testimony on Feb. 6 that the U.S. attorney in Arkansas, Bud Cummins, was pushed out for no reason other than to give someone else a shot at the job. Using a little-noticed provision in the Patriot Act allowing interim appointments, Gonzales gave the post to Timothy Griffin -- who had been both an operative for the Republican National Committee and a deputy to senior White House advisor Karl Rove -- in what many believe was a maneuver to sidestep the traditional Senate confirmation process for U.S. attorneys.
More recently, U.S. attorney Carol Lam, who is best known for nailing corrupt Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and his partners in crime, was replaced on Feb. 15 by Karen P. Hewitt, who according to a Justice Department press release, "will serve on an interim basis until a United States Attorney is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate." According to an Op-Ed in Monday's New York Times, Hewitt has a rsum with "almost no criminal law experience" and is a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.
While Cummins was first informed of his dismissal last June, it wasn't until Dec. 7 that Michael Battle, a top Justice Department official, informed the rest of the group of U.S. attorneys in phone calls that they would be required to step down. That group included Daniel Bogden in Nevada, Paul Charlton in Arizona, John McKay in Seattle, Carol Lam in San Diego, and David Iglesias in New Mexico -- all of whom had received positive job reviews before they were dismissed and some of whom are viewed by colleagues and law enforcement officials as exceptional leaders. Most of them have said publicly that they were never told of any management or policy problems by their superiors.
According to the former senior Justice Department official, one of the U.S. attorneys in the group was told by Battle on Dec. 7: "It's hard not to think you did something wrong when you get a call like this, but that's not always the case." Two other U.S. attorneys in the group, upon seeking clarification from superiors in Washington, were told by a different top Justice Department official that they were being pushed out to give other Bush appointees their posts. A current senior Justice Department official confirmed that one of those two was Bogden in Nevada.
When asked about those conversations with top officials, Bryan Roehrkasse, a public affairs spokesman for the Justice Department, declined to comment about "specific personnel matters."
Former officials, legal scholars and U.S. lawmakers from both parties have publicly questioned the administration's stated rationale for the firings and have suggested troubling theories about the real reasons for the purge, which experts say is without precedent. Some former Justice Department officials say they believe the administration's moves are a politically driven power grab -- aimed not only at a tighter grip on policy from Washington, but also at creating openings with which to reward their friends and build up a bench of conservative loyalists positioned to serve in powerful posts in future administrations.
"It's really remarkable to have a wholesale removal of an administration's own U.S. attorneys, particularly this deep into the term," said John Kroger, a federal prosecutor under Clinton and Bush who now teaches at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Ore. "Clearly there was a concerted decision made to ask a bunch of them to leave. It suggests a desire to more tightly control policy. With the Democrats in control of Congress, perhaps it's because this is one of the few levers of government they have left."
Many point to the Cummins firing as proof that the administration is lying. "It is simply not believable that these were all performance-based dismissals, and everyone knows it," said a veteran prosecutor who served for a decade in the Justice Department until 2005. He also noted that he found it interesting that half of the posts cleared out are in the Southwest, where immigration is a key issue.
Kroger added that a stint as U.S. attorney is often a springboard to federal judgeships or other prestigious appointments. "Being a U.S. attorney is a huge credential, one a lot of people would like to have," he said. "It certainly looks like they're clearing out spots to reward loyalists in the last two years of the administration."
To support their claim that the dismissals were performance related, Bush officials have pointed to one among the fired U.S. attorneys, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco, who has been widely reported to be a focus of management complaints. The firing of Margaret Chiara in Michigan, the eighth U.S. attorney caught up in the December purge, was not made public until last Friday. To date, no explanation for her dismissal has been provided by Chiara or administration officials, but the former senior Justice Department official confirmed she was asked to resign in December and was in negotiations to stay in her post.
Next page: Throwing out a top prosecutor in the war on terrorism; installing conservatives with close ties to the White House
posted on March 7, 2007 09:31:46 AM new
In 2008 it will be the Democratic voters job to fire what is left of the BUSHY Republican lawmakers and Democratic President's job to fire 195 right wing judges. YES!!!
ALSO IN 2008 BUSHY WILL BE RETIRED TO HIS RANCH LIVING IN THE DISGRACE OF A FAILED PRESIDENCY.
posted on March 8, 2007 08:36:35 PM new
Bear wrote, "One of clintons first acts was to fire 93 US attorneys when he entered the WH. Now THATS purging." "But then it is the PEROGATIVE of the President to fire any of them at ANY time."
That claim, that Clinton fired federal prosecutors as political retribution is wrong...another distortion from Rove.
From John Podesta
"Mr. Roves claims today that the Bush administrations purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is normal and ordinary is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings."
"Were used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, its also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior."
Earlier this week, Mary Jo White, who was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1993-2002, also stated that the Bush administrations prosecutor purge is unprecedented in modern history:
You serve at the presidents pleasure, no question about that. However, throughout modern history, my understanding is, you did not change the U.S. attorney during an administration, unless there was some evidence of misconduct or other really quite significant cause to do so. And the expectation was, so long as that was absent, that you would serve out your full four years or eight years as U.S. attorney.
As White noted, attorneys need to serve without fear or favor and in an absolutely apolitical way. By firing well-respected federal prosecutors and replacing them with Republican loyalists, the Bush administration has politicized the judicial system.
posted on March 8, 2007 11:59:27 PM new
Why Were These U.S. Attorneys Fired?
Wednesday, Mar. 07, 2007 By ADAM ZAGORIN/WASHINGTON Former U.S. District Attorneys Carol Lam, David Iglesias, John McKay, Daniel Bogden and H.E. "Bud" Cummins, left to right, listen to testimony during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., March, 6, 2007.
Chip Somodevilla / Getty
After Republicans lost control of Congress last year, newly empowered Democrats promised to launch a series of tough investigations on everything from the Iraq war to Medicare and high energy prices. But since taking charge on Capitol Hill in January, a series of unexpected new issues have captured their attention,
none potentially more damaging to the Bush Administration than the controversy over alleged political influence in the firing of eight Republican U.S. attorneys last Dec. 7,
in an episode that some of its victims have already taken to calling the "Pearl Harbor Day Massacre."
The White House approves all U.S. attorneys, who function as the federal government's chief prosecutors in 93 jurisdictions around the country. As political appointees, they serve "at the pleasure of the President," and can be replaced, at least theoretically, at any time for any reason. But group firings in the middle a presidential term are highly unusual. Though Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted to Congress that "I would never, ever make a change in a U.S. attorney position for political reasons," critics were outraged at the December dismissals, among them the firing of an Arkansas U.S. attorney to make way for Timothy Griffin, a prot of White House political guru Karl Rove. The outcry forced Griffin to withdraw. Gonzales' top deputy later claimed the firings were necessary because of "performance-related" issues.
But it was later revealed that all but two of the dismissed prosecutors had won outstanding evaluations for competence.
Those revelations set the stage for Tuesday's dramatic appearance of six of the ousted Republican prosecutors before House and Senate committees dominated by Democrats. One of the fired prosecutors, David Iglesias of New Mexico, testified that he felt "leaned on" by Sen. Pete Domenici over a case he was pursuing. Iglesias said the New Mexico Republican and former mentor hung up on him after learning Iglesias would not seek indictments in a criminal investigation of Democrats before the 2006 election. "He said, 'Are these going to be filed before November?'" Iglesias recalled. "I said I didn't think so... to which he replied, 'I'm very sorry to hear that.' And then the line went dead. "I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach," Iglesias testified. "Six weeks later I got the call that I had to move on." The ousted prosecutor also said that Heather Wilson, a Republican House member from New Mexico, had called him about the same issue.
Both Domenici and Wilson confirmed that they had gotten in touch with Iglesias, but denied pressuring him in any way. The Justice Department also acknowledged that Domenici had called Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his top deputy four times to complain about Iglesias' behavior, inquiring whether he was "up to the job."
Another fired U.S. attorney, H. E. "Bud" Cummins of Arkansas, testified that he had e-mailed fellow ousted prosecutors last month, warning them of a threatening message conveyed by a senior Justice Department official. Cummins' e-mail, which was released publicly, quoted the Justice official as warning that if fired U.S. attorneys continued to talk to the media or volunteered to testify before Congress, the department "would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off" and fight back. The DOJ denied the allegation.
Yet another sacked U.S. attorney, John McKay of Seattle, declared that a top aide to Rep. Doc Hastings, the former Republican chairman of the House Ethics Committee, had called him to ask detailed questions about a politically charged investigation McKay was conducting into the disputed 2004 election of Washington state's Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire. Hastings and his aide have denied the allegation.
The day before the Congressional hearings, Michael Battle, the Justice Department official who had made the telephone calls to dismiss six of the eight prosecutors, announced he was leaving his job. The Department described the sudden departure as long planned, having nothing to do with the controversial terminations he had been required to carry out. But Democrats immediately questioned that version of events. Said Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat: "The wheels are coming off the Bush Administration's increasingly hollow defense of its decision."
Amid all the criticism, several DOJ officials offered a robust defense of the Administration in testimony before Congress. One official, repeating the assertion that most of the firings were motivated by poor performance, cited the case of U.S. attorney Carol Lam of California, who last year successfully prosecuted former G.O.P. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham for corruption. The DOJ official said Lam was pushed out, not because of the Cunningham case, but because her prosecution rates for violent crime and border violations were inadequate. Another DOJ official testified that Iglesias had been fired because he delegated too much to a subordinate and did not show enough "leadership". The firings might never have happened if not for a little-noticed clause slipped into the Patriot Act last year. That provision, promoted by the White House, permits the President to appoint "interim" U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation for an indefinite period. The White House successfully pushed the measure because it regarded the previous law (which allowed unconfirmed U.S. attorneys to serve for only 120 days) as an undue limit on the prerogatives of the President. Living within those limits, however, might have been easier for Bush to endure than the controversy the firings have now embroiled him in.
posted on March 9, 2007 03:37:27 AM new
Bear,
I set it up years ago to own nothing at this point in my life. Your just very jealous you don't have anyone you can trust like I have.
Hey CHUMP stick to your guns and you might make it some day if they don't change the laws on ya.
Keep looking over your shoulder CHUMP the republican laws are catching up with ya and you were so much of a CHUMP voted for them to "bring them on". PITIFUL
posted on March 9, 2007 08:18:00 AM new
Ya, I know , this is dull stuff...no Really Important Blow Jobs that threaten American safety and freedom ....
but very important anyway.....
"""The firings might never have happened if not for a little-noticed clause slipped into the Patriot Act last year.
That provision, promoted by the White House, permits the President to appoint "interim" U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation for an indefinite period.
The White House successfully pushed the measure because it regarded the previous law (which allowed unconfirmed U.S. attorneys to serve for only 120 days) as an undue limit on the prerogatives of the President.
Living within those limits, however, might have been easier for Bush to endure than the controversy the firings have now embroiled him in."""
posted on March 10, 2007 01:45:47 PM new
Many felt this President should have purged more 'left-overs' from the clinton admin. than they did.
He choose to keep many of them. WRONG choice....as has been proved out, imo.
But the ONLY thing that needs to be said is:
"You serve at the president's pleasure, no question about that."
And that's what the Bush haters/bashers CAN'T handle. ROFLOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Rove worried that Gonzales becoming a liability over US Attorneys scandal
But inside the White House, aides to the president, including Mr. Rove and Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, were said to be increasingly concerned that the controversy could damage Mr. Bush.
Theyre taking it seriously, said the other of the two Republicans who spoke about the White Houses relationship with Mr. Gonzales. I think Rove and Bolten believe there is the potential for erosion of the presidents credibility on this issue.
NEW YORK The New York Times got the editorial ball rolling on Monday, calling for the firing of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales due largely, if not completely, to the burgeoning scandal involving the forced departure of eight U.S. attorneys. Today the notion spread across the country.
"We haven't seen a renegade U.S. Justice Department like this since John Mitchell ran it for President Nixon," declared the Sacremento Bee. "With a new Congress beginning to exercise serious oversight, the problems at the Justice Department and with its leader, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, are becoming clearer by the day. And what is becoming most clear is that Gonzales must go."
The Washington Postimplies the same thing. The Los Angeles Times agreed but placed much of the blame on President Bush. The Philadephia Inquirer demanded: "U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should resign. If he ever does, the nation could take it as a clear sign that President Bush finally grasps the need to preserve core civil liberties while guarding against terrorism."
The Buffalo (N.Y.) News: "He should go. The country needs an attorney general who wants to uphold the law, not subvert it."
From Florida Today in Melbourne: "He should be removed and replaced with someone willing to protect the Constitution. Chances are Bush won't do that."
The Financial Times weighed in: "Mr. Gonzales had every right to sack prosecutors, who are political appointees. But he had no right to mislead Congress about why he did so even though he is now blaming lower officals for the misinformation. Mr Gonzales has shown a disdain for Congress and the rights of the American people. He has amply proved that he will never be anything other than Mr Bushs lawyer a mere apologist for the imperial presidency. The affair has already claimed one top scalp at the justice department. It is high time Mr Gonzales stepped down too."
The Bush-friendly Dallas Morning News came close to calling for Gonzales' exit, but more for the alleged abuse of the Patriot Act revealed in the recent revelations about the FBI. Sen. John Cornyn told Morning News editorial board Monday that he was "disappointed" in Gonzales' performance, adding that there's a perception that he has not drawn an adequate firewall between his office and the White House.
"Frankly, we think the problem is real, not a perception," the newspaper observed. "It demands much more than apologies from FBI Director Robert Mueller and Mr. Gonzales starting with tough questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee. The nation's two top cops should know that aggressive law enforcement and due process aren't mutually exclusive. If they think otherwise, then they're not the right individuals for these jobs."
The Chicago Tribune also falls short of calling for a dismissal for now. But it closes its editorial: "This is a fast-evolving story, with crucial events and motives still to be probed and explained, by the administration and the Congress. As the facts of this disturbing but still incomplete narrative come together, we're likely as a nation to learn if the answer to the question that opens this editorial is yes or no. If it's yes, Gonzales should resign. "
That opening question: "Did the attorney general of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, engineer the dismissals of several federal prosecutors for partisan political reasons?"
Gonzales said at a press conference on Tuesday that he would not quit, although he accepted responsibility for how the attorney layoff was handled.
The Washington Post editorial, "The Story Unravels," concludes:
"Now that the political costs are higher than the administration could have imagined, now that senior officials have squandered their claim to credibility, it is imperative that the entire story of the firings be uncovered. As we have said previously, the administration is entitled to prosecutors who reflect its policies and carry out its priorities. It is not entitled to treat federal prosecutors like political pawns -- nor is it entitled, any longer, to the benefit of the doubt about the propriety of its conduct.
"Mr. Gonzales can make self-serving declarations about his belief in 'accountability,' as he did at a news conference yesterday; he can proclaim his plans to 'ascertain what happened here . . . and take corrective actions.' Nothing in his record gives any reason for confidence that anything will change in a department under his leadership."
The Los Angeles Times agrees but also casts its eyes higher:
"It should surprise no one that Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales finds himself in the middle of a growing scandal. But don't blame him for the lack of principled leadership at the Justice Department. Blame his boss. President Bush appointed a man clearly unqualified for the job.
"We opposed Gonzales' nomination to be attorney general two years ago, arguing that the nation's top law enforcement job should go to someone who understands the limits as well as the power of the law, and someone who understands that his loyalty is to the Constitution as much as it is to the president. Gonzales' atrocious performance as White House counsel, when he enabled far too many shortcuts in the war on terror, was ample reason to disqualify him for attorney general.
"This attorney general is loyal to a fault to Bush. He is too loyal to be an effective lawyer, causing the president harm both when he worked at the White House and now that he oversees the Justice Department.
'The administration's broader disdain for legal niceties underlies recent revelations about the abuse of Patriot Act powers to secretly obtain private data about U.S. citizens, as well as the dismissal of U.S. attorneys. In the case of these prosecutors, Gonzales was apparently driven by his desire to continue making himself useful to the president and the party. That's why his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, resigned Monday. He was working a little too closely with the White House in orchestrating the ouster of several federal prosecutors late last year....
"The fact that the White House was complaining to the Justice Department that David Iglesias, the well-regarded federal prosecutor in New Mexico, was insufficiently committed to taking up voter fraud cases that Republicans cared deeply about is rather alarming. Alarming, but not surprising not so long as Gonzales is attorney general."
posted on March 15, 2007 09:04:33 AM new
More on the latest in a loooooong list of repug scandals and corruption.....::
Panel OKs Subpoenas in Attorney Probe
Updated 11:49 AM ET March 15, 2007
By LAURIE KELLMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday cleared the way for subpoenas compelling five Justice Department officials and six of the U.S. attorneys they fired to tell the story of the purge that has prompted demands for the ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The voice vote to authorize the panel to issue subpoenas amounts to insurance against the possibility that Gonzales could retract his permission to let the aides testify voluntarily, or impose strict conditions.
The committee also postponed for a week a vote on whether to authorize subpoenas of top aides to President Bush who were involved in the eight firings, including political adviser Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and deputy White House Counsel William K. Kelley.
The committee approved subpoena power over key Justice Department officials involved in the firings: Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Bill Mercer and Mike Battle.
Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, quit this week. Elston is staff chief to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Mercer is associate attorney general. Goodling is Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, and Battle is the departing director of the office that oversees all 93 U.S. attorneys.
Gonzales has said he would allow the aides still at the Justice Department to testify voluntarily. It was unclear whether Sampson would agree to tell his story without a subpoena.
The panel also approved subpoena power for six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired since December. The six, all of whom testified last week under oath before the House Committee, are: Carol Lam of California, Bud Cummins of Arkansas, Paul Charlton of Arizona, John McKay of Washington state, Daniel Bogden of Nevada, David Iglesias of New Mexico.
The subpoenas are a warning to the embattled administration to follow through on promises in recent days by Gonzales and Bush to tell the whole story of the firings, beyond the selected details that Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella revealed to the House panel last week.
"I want to obtain their cooperation and all relevant information," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said. "But I want people to know that if I do not get cooperation, I will subpoena, we will have testimony under oath in this committee. We will find out what happened."
Ranking Republican Arlen Specter said he would do the same thing if he were still chairman, but he cautioned against passing judgment on Gonzales and the aides before the facts are fully known.
"I agree that this committee should get to the bottom of this issue," Specter, R-Pa., said. "I would hope that we would do so with at least a modicum of objectivity."
Some senators have called for days for Bush to fire Gonzales.
Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire on Wednesday became the first Republican to call for Gonzales' ouster just hours after Bush gave the attorney general, a longtime friend of the president, a vote of confidence.
"I think the president should replace him," Sununu said in an interview. "I think the attorney general should be fired."
posted on March 16, 2007 08:58:01 AM new
GOSH! Keeping up with all the REPUBLICAN scandals is "hard work" !!!
Probe of Federal Prosecutors Intensifies
Updated 8:36 AM ET March 16, 2007
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is being pulled further into the intensifying probe over federal prosecutor firings amid new questions about top political adviser Karl Rove's role and as GOP support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales erodes.
President Bush's top legal aides were to tell congressional Democrats on Friday whether and under what conditions they would allow high-level White House officials, including Rove, to testify under oath in the inquiry.
Subpoenas could come as early as next week.
E-mails released this week, including a set issued Thursday night by the Justice Department, appear to contradict the administration's assertion that Bush's staff had only limited involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, which Democrats have suggested were a politically motivated purge.
Each new piece in the rapidly unfolding saga of how the prosecutors came to be dismissed has made it more difficult for the White House to insulate itself from the controversy.
The latest e-mails between White House and Justice Department officials show that Rove inquired in early January 2005 about firing U.S. attorneys.
The one-page document, which incorporates an e-mail exchange in January 2005, also indicates Gonzales was considering dismissing up to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys in the weeks before he took over the Justice Department.
In the e-mails, Gonzales' top aide, Kyle Sampson, says that an across-the-board housecleaning "would certainly send ripples through the U.S. attorney community if we told folks they got one term only." But it concludes that "if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."
Sampson resigned this week over the prosecutors' firings and the Justice Department's misleading of Congress about the process.
The e-mails "show conclusively that Karl Rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "Every time new information comes out, it proves that the White House was not telling the truth."
Earlier Thursday, Rove said the controversy was being fueled by "superheated political rhetoric," adding that there was no similar uproar when President Clinton dismissed all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his first term.
"We're at a point where people want to play politics with it. That's fine," Rove told students at Troy University in Alabama.
The White House said the e-mails don't undercut their account of Rove's involvement in the matter. Rove has a "vague recollection" that the idea to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys at the start of Bush's second term came from then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.
"He thought it was a bad idea and would be unwise," Perino said.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed Justice Department officials in the probe. The panel will vote March 22 on subpoenas for Rove, Miers and her deputy, William K. Kelley.
One Republican, Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, has publicly urged Bush to fire Gonzales. Another GOP lawmaker, this one in the House and not ready to speak out publicly, said Thursday he planned to call next week for Gonzales to step down. And Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said Thursday that Gonzales had lost the confidence of Congress.
Other Republican lawmakers are trying to quell the uproar until they hear from Gonzales and his aides.
"Let's give them a chance to respond before we get tough," said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the senior Judiciary Committee Republican. "I'm prepared to get tough, but I want to get tough with a basis for doing so."
It's customary for new presidents to bring in their own team of prosecutors when they take office. Democrats say the Bush administration singled out some of its own nominees because they chafed at the president's priorities and Republican efforts to influence political corruption investigations.
"Eight U.S. attorneys who did not play ball with the political agenda of this administration were dropped from the team," said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois. "We have a right to ask what that political agenda was and whether or not it was a reasonable firing and dismissal."
Bush on Wednesday defended the firings but criticized how they were explained to Congress. The president said he still had confidence in the attorney general but implied that his support was conditioned on Gonzales patching things up with lawmakers.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on March 17, 2007 08:31:00 PM new
Gonzales Offers Mea Culpa to Attorneys
Updated 10:49 PM ET March 17, 2007
By DEB RIECHMANN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, facing another tough week amid calls for his ouster, has offered a mea culpa to the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys for the way the Justice Department fired eight of their colleagues.
During the conference call Friday, planned as a pep talk to raise morale at a Justice Department tainted by the firings and the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act, Gonzales apologized for how the dismissals were handled and for suggesting there were problems with the prosecutors' job performances, according to an official familiar with the conversation.
But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose details of the call, said Gonzales did not apologize for firing the eight U.S. attorneys, a decision he and President Bush have defended.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Saturday the call was set up to allow Gonzales to reiterate "how important the U.S. attorneys are to him as his representatives in the communities they serve and as prosecutors charged with protecting their communities from violent criminals, drug dealers and predators.""""
SO! They WEREN'T doing a bad job SO WHY WERE THEY FIRED?
C'mon, Gonzales, you chubby puppet, explain THAT!
Notice most of the bushit's scandal are starting to sound the same....like they have a prepared script for "when we get caught".
posted on March 18, 2007 06:08:48 AM new
From America Blog.
LA Times gives credit where credit is due - To Talking Points Memeo
The LA Times credits Josh Marshall and the crew at TPM for both discovering and pushing the scandal about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. TPM's tenacity is one of the reasons that Alberto Gonzales is going to lose his job soon:
In December, Josh Marshall, who owns and runs TPM , posted a short item linking to a news report in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette about the firing of the U.S. attorney for that state. Marshall later followed up, adding that several U.S. attorneys were apparently being replaced and asked his 100,000 or so daily readers to write in if they knew anything about U.S. attorneys being fired in their areas.
For the two months that followed, Talking Points Memo and one of its sister sites, TPM Muckraker, accumulated evidence from around the country on who the axed prosecutors were, and why politics might be behind the firings. The cause was taken up among Democrats in Congress. One senior Justice Department official has resigned, and Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales is now in the media crosshairs.
This isn't the first time Marshall and Talking Points have led coverage on national issues. In 2002, the site was the first to devote more than just passing mention to then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's claim that the country would have been better off had the segregationist 1948 presidential campaign of Sen. Strom Thurmond succeeded. The subsequent furor cost Lott his leadership position.
Similarly, the TPM sites were leaders in chronicling the various scandals associated with Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
posted on March 18, 2007 08:08:08 PM new
LOL.....and kiara calls the sites I use 'rags'. LOL LOL LOL
Oh yea, 'muckraker' sounds so much more reliable for news and information.
You wacko liberals have REALLY lost it....lol
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 18, 2007 08:37:24 PM new
Updated:2007-03-18 21:29:03
Leahy Intends to Subpoena Bush Officials
Fallout Grows on Dismissals of Federal Prosecutors
By HOPE YEN AP
WASHINGTON (March 18) - The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday he intends to subpoena White House officials involved in ousting federal prosecutors and is dismissing anything short of their testimony in public.
The chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., last week delayed a vote on the subpoenas until Thursday as the president's counsel, Fred Fielding, sought to negotiate terms. But on Sunday, Leahy said he had not met Fielding nor was he particularly open to any compromises, such as a private briefing by the administration officials.
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the committee, said he had a long talk with Fielding on Friday and was reserving judgment. Specter said he would like to see Rove and Miers' open testimony because there were numerous precedents for it.
Believe me when Specter is on T.V. he says what people want to hear but rarely votes against Bushy and the republicans.
Specter is just another lier republican that needs to put in retirement in 2008.
If Bushy and this White House tries to stop its people from testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee its thumbing its nose at the American people and the rule of law again.
posted on March 18, 2007 08:55:00 PM new
Well linduh! They finally gave back your computer time! A week in solitaire ususally works I hear
Didn't come back with much to say about all the scum coming to the surface in Washington, did ya?
LOL!
Gee, and isn't it odd that bear disappeared at the same time you did .....
Specter when in front of a camera tells middle class America what they want to hear. Then Specter votes for law after law along with Bushy that is bad for the middle class.
Like I said he is just another LIAR that says one thing and votes with BUSHY.
Pennsylvania people have caught up with his NEW-CON tricks and he will be gone in 2008 along with many more Republicans.
classic, thanks for giving me the chance to EXPOSE yet another republican LIAR.
