bush: not in public, not under oath?

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What would he have Congress do? Bringing responsibility to the government seems to be what he is asking for, and this is what Congress is attempting to do. Is it that it isn't trying to bring responsibility in the right place? But bringing it in the Justice wing is the first thing that should be done, as he referenced, it is hard to oversight the rest when the Justice wing is corrupt.

I really don't see the point of this opinion peice, other than a "look, Democrats are as bad as the Republicans". Which based upon recent actions strikes me as rediculous.

Jon Miller

I think the point is, what good is supoenaing when Gonzalez would have to enforce them if the White House didn't comply? Since he's another loyal incompetent, he wouldn't go against the administration, even if it were the right thing to do, would he?

I guess he'd hope Congress would rise above "partisan buffoonery." They can only bring responsibility to their own branch, right? How can they bring responsibility to the exec if they can't enforce anything?

I'm not particulary pleased about how the firings have gone down, and the lame excuses for why it happened, and Bush saying aides can testify, but not under oath, and no transcripts. But what's really going to come of all this? If Gonzalez ends up resigning, Bush will just nominate some other loyal dolt. Those that were fired aren't going to be unfired, are they?

[Dinner]

A poster on another site asked why he should care about this case. This was my response:

Because this isn't about if a man got a blowjob or if his wife made money selling a property and then trying to make political hay out of it. Everyone knew those had no law breaking at all and the Republicans were just trying to embarrass Clinton but this case is entirely different. We have real evidence, in the form of memos & e-mails written by top White House officials, proving that the White House wanted to fire one of those US Attorneys to stop the criminal prosecution of Congressional corruption. That is the very definition of Obstruction of Justice and it is a felony; the same felony which brought Nixon down. It appears that the White House has done this at least twice in the recent past and likely more.

The other aspects of this case are that the White House officials deliberately lied to an official Congressional inquiry, which is also a felony, and that several other US Attorneys were fired after they refused to break the ethical code of standards. Specifically the White House and several Republican Congressmen called up these US Attorneys just before the last election and demanded they trump up groundless charges against Democratic candidates just so Republicans could then claim the corruption was bipartisan instead of almost exclusively a Republican problem (and it was almost exclusively a Republican problem if for no other reason then the Republicans controlled EVERY PART OF GOVERNMENT and then locked Democrats out of any positions of influence).

So in conclusion the reasons you should care are 1) The White House has been committing the felony of Obstruction of Justice. 2) White House officials have committed the felony of lying to Congress in an attempt to cover up their felony Obstruction of Justice. 3) They've been improperly pressuring supposedly nonpartisan US Attorneys to file baseless cases against innocent people in an attempt to influence election results. That's why you should care.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Because this isn't about if a man got a blowjob or if his wife made money selling a property and then trying to make political hay out of it. Everyone knew those had no law breaking at all

Weren't you the one proclaiming perjury to be a felony? Also the McDougal's might want to know why they went to jail if there was no law breaking going on?

RE the rest: Prosecutors always have ongoing cases. Forinstance one of the AG's Clinton fired had a case going against Dan Rostinkowski (a man he later pardoned). Should they never be fired? Don't get me wrong that would be a legit arguement and I think it would be a good idea for it to be a career job but that isn't the system we have.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Weren't you the one proclaiming perjury to be a felony?

Perjury is a felony -- a knowingly made false statdment of material fact, made under oath. If you're talking about Clinton, what statement did he make, knowing that it was false, that was material to Jennifer Flowers's claim that he violated her civil rights by sexually harassing her?

Also the McDougal's might want to know why they went to jail if there was no law breaking going on?

After the investments of the Clintons's and the McDougals's tanked, the McDougals attempted to cover it up by using fraudulently obtained monies from various sources. Also, Susan refused to answer Ken Starr's questions, so she was held in contempt.

RE the rest: Prosecutors always have ongoing cases. Forinstance one of the AG's Clinton fired had a case going against Dan Rostinkowski (a man he later pardoned). Should they never be fired? Don't get me wrong that would be a legit arguement and I think it would be a good idea for it to be a career job but that isn't the system we have.

Reagan canned all the U.S. Attorneys when he took office. Bush 41 canned all the U.S. Attorneys when he took office. Clinton canned all the U.S. Attoreys when he took office. IIRC, Bush43 canned all the U.S. Attorneys when he took office.

The difference now is that we're six years into the Bush Administration and it looks very strongly like staffers in the White House were cherry picking U.S. Attorneys to terminate in order to quash investigator of Republicans and/or to put people in place who would go gunning for Democrats.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: bush: not in public, not under oath?

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
It's called executive privledge and its well established in precedent and constitutional law. Preservation of this principle is at the heart of the matter.

Just the same sort of thing Nixon was concerned about when he tried to withhold the tapes.

[-Jrabbit]

Eventually Puppetmaster Rove will be exposed, not for his goals (which are known), but for his methods in attaining those goals. That's what scares Bush & Co.

And it should.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon

I think the point is, what good is supoenaing when Gonzalez would have to enforce them if the White House didn't comply? Since he's another loyal incompetent, he wouldn't go against the administration, even if it were the right thing to do, would he?

I believe the Capitol Police are under the authority of the Congress. If, say, Gonzales ignored the subpoena, Congress could order the Capitol Police to take him into custody.

Of course, Gonzales could flee to the White House, where Bush could protect him. Bush could order the Secret Service to repel the Capitol Police. Gunfire would erupt. And a fun time could be had by all.

[Ramo]

Don't think that works...

IIRC, Bush offered up Gonzales (and his CoS) to Congress. The problematic subpeonas are regarding Miers and Rove

[Dinner]

The White House is currently refusing to hand over memos and e-mails about the US Attorney purge for an 18 day period right up to when the purge was conducted.

Snow Won’t Comment On 18-Day Gap: ‘I’ve Been Led To Believe There’s A Good Response For It’

Researchers have discovered an 18-day gap in the 3,000 documents on the U.S. Attorney purge released this week by the Justice Department. The gap extends from mid-November to early December, “which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.”

During today’s press briefing, CNN’s Ed Henry noted that one of the last emails before the gap is from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ ex-chief of staff Kyle Sampson to then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, asking, “Who will determine whether this requires the president’s attention?”

White House spokesman Tony Snow refused to explain the gap, telling reporters, “I’ve been led to believe that there’s a good response for it.” He said President Bush “has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.”

Source and video at this link: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/snow-gap

[Dinner]

Fired U.S. Attorneys led the Nation in Convictions.

Fired U.S. Attorneys led the Nation in Convictions
Every day, the explanations for the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys are becoming less about competence and more about corruption. Some new statistics show that the prosecutors were in fact leading the nation in output:

* Six ranked in the top third of all U.S. attorneys for prosecutions, filing a combined 106,188 last year alone

* Five ranked in the top third for convictions, achieving 98,939

* Three were among the top five in the number of immigration prosecutions (including Carol Lam, whose firing was attributed to immigration by Karl Rove)

Now these were some busy folks. It is almost a wonder that the fired U.S. attorneys had the time to take the phone calls notifying them of their dismissals.

If these U.S. attorneys were deemed expendable after leading the nation in prosecutorial output, what have the underperformers been doing to keep their jobs? If prosecutions and convictions don't matter, what does?

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/193

[Dinner]

A nice run down of the facts vs the fiction:

The Bush administration on the U.S. Attorneys Case: Fact vs. Fiction

Time and again, members of the Bush administration have failed to level with the American people on the events surrounding the dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys. Here are the facts.

***FICTION ON "PERFORMANCE"

FICTION: The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General both claimed that the eight United States Attorneys were dismissed for "performance" related reasons.

Attorney General Gonzales made that claim under oath. "What we do is we make an evaluation about the performance of individuals, and I have a responsibility to the people in your district that we have the best possible people in these positions. And that's the reason why changes sometimes have to be made, although there are a number of reasons why changes get made and why people leave on their own." (Testimony of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/18/07)

Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty repeated that claim under oath. "As the attorney general said at his oversight hearing last month, the phone calls that were made back in December were performance related." (Testimony of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 2/6/07)

FACT:: Justice Department performance evaluations of these U.S. Attorneys were overwhelmingly positive.

FACT:Attorneys fired not for bad performance but for political differences. "All but one of the U.S. attorneys recently fired by the Justice Department had positive job reviews before they were dismissed, but many ran into political trouble with Washington over issues ranging from immigration to the death penalty, according to prosecutors, congressional aides and others familiar with the cases."

FACT: Daniel Bodgen, U.S. Attorney for Nevada, received a "very positive" evaluation. "For instance, Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney in Nevada, was described in his last job performance evaluation in 2003 as being a 'capable' leader who was highly regarded by the federal judiciary and investigators. 'He didn't get any dings,' said a Justice Department official with knowledge of the review. 'The overall evaluation was very positive.' Bogden was told to step down in December." (McClatchy, 2/12/07)

FACT: Deputy Attorney General McNulty admitted to never having seen Bogden's performance records. "I'm still a little skittish about Bogden ... I'll admit have not looked at his district's performance. Sorry to be raising this again/now; it was just on my mind last night and evening." Email from Deputy AG Paul McNulty to Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, 12/5/06)

FACT: John McKay, U.S. Attorney for Seattle, was "effective, well- regarded, and capable leader." "McKay, who stepped down recently, said in an interview that his positive review in May 2006 didn't explain his ouster, nor did the phone call he received in December from a Justice Department official who ordered him to resign. The 65-page evaluation described McKay's relationship with most of the federal judges in his area as 'excellent' and praised the quality of his office's work. McKay 'is an effective, well- regarded and capable leader,' the evaluation stated. 'I understand that the recent evaluation of your office went well,' director Michael Battle told McKay in a letter dated April 7, 2006." (McClatchy, 2/12/07)

FACT: Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney for San Diego, was "well-respected." "Lam, another U.S. attorney who was told to resign, was described in her 2005 evaluation as 'well respected' by law enforcement officials, judges and her staff. Overall, the review was positive, according to another Justice Department official who has seen the evaluation. 'We're not aware of any significant issues,' said the official, who also asked not to be identified. Lam is leaving office Feb 15." (McClatchy, 2/12/07)

FACT: Even the Justice Department now admits performance wasn't the issue. "Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' 'performance-related' problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter." (WashingtonPost, 3/3/07)
................
FICTION: Karl Rove claimed that Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney for San Diego, was dismissed because she did not focus on immigration cases. "Another United States attorney was doing an otherwise excellent job in the San Diego district. refused to file immigration cases ... at the direction of the Attorney General, she was asked to file, and she said I don't want to make that a priority in my office." (Karl Rove Remarks at the Statehouse Convention Center in Littlerock, AK, 3/8/07)

FACT:The Justice Department wrote to Senator Dianne Feinstein three months before the firing, vouching for Lam's handling of immigration cases. "Please know that immigration enforcement is critically important to the Department and to the United States Attorney's Office in the Southern District of California. That office is presently committing fully half of its Assistant United States Attorneys to prosecute criminal immigration cases. The immigration prosecution philosophy of the Southern District focuses on deterrence by directing its resources and efforts against the worst immigration offenders and by bringing felony cases against such defendant that will result in longer sentences." (Letter from William E. Moschella, Asst. Attorney General, to the Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein, 8/23/06)

FACT: Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Gonzales, looked to immigration as an excuse to fire Carol Lam. "Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re: immigration enforcement? Has anyone? If the AG ordered 20 more prosecutors to the S.D. Cal. To do immigration enforcement only where would we get them from (remember the premise: AG has ordered it)? Please advise?" (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to Bill Mercer, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 5/31/06)

FACT: Disgraced former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham signed a letter expressing frustration with Carol Lam four months after she began prosecuting him - and one month before he pled guilty. "Again, we would like to meet to discuss the disparity between crimes committed and prosecutions conducted at your earliest convenience ... Sincerely ... Randy 'Duke' Cunningham." (Letter to Attorney General Gonzales, 10/20/05)
..........................
FICTION: The Bush Administration told Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) that Daniel Bogden was fired because he did not prosecute enough "adult obscenity" cases. "One is that I was trying to get the specifics of why he was let go. And to be honest with you, this is what I was told. I was told that there were two areas that they didn't feel that Dan was being aggressive enough. One was on obscenity cases -- adult obscenity cases." Press Conference by Senator John Ensign (R-NV.), 3/13/07)

FACT: Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella said that Daniel Bogden actually had no significant deficiencies. "The general sense in the department about Mr. Bogden is that given the importance of the district in Las Vegas, there was no particular deficiency. There was an interest in seeing new energy and renewed vigor in that office, really taking it to the next level." Testimony of William Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, to the House Judiciary Committee, 3/6/07)

FACT: Daniel Bogden moved forward on adult obscenity cases - even when the Justice Department gave him little to work with. "A former senior law enforcement official knowledgeable about the work of the Nevada U.S. attorney's office said he was shocked to see the criticism of Bogden ... The case in question, involving adult obscenity on the Internet, was 'woefully deficient' of details according to the official, who confirmed that Ward had gone to Nevada in early September 2006 to present it. 'All they had was a Web site,' he said. 'They didn't have a target fully identified, they had no assets -- they didn't even know where the guy was managing his server.' Nevertheless ... Bogden's office agreed to put together a proposal for pursuing the case, outlining the additional work and resources needed to build it, the official said. The implication that Bogden was refusing to take on a 'good case' in that instance, the official said, 'is totally absurd.'" (Salon.com, 3/19/07)

FACT: Senator Ensign may have been "intentionally mislead." "I said it before: I was either intentionally misled or somebody was misinformed and unaware of the complete process." (Press Conference by Senator John Ensign (R-NV.), 3/13/07)
..............................................
FICTION: White House Advisor Dan Bartlett claimed that David Iglesias was fired because of complaints on his handling of voter-fraud cases. "That is not limited to U.S. attorneys. And over the course of several years we have received complaints about U.S. attorneys, particularly when it comes to election fraud cases -- not just New Mexico, but also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania ... "(Press Conference with White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, 3/13/07)

FACT: David Iglesias was asked by the Department of Justice to lead a voter fraud seminar for more than 100 prosecutors across the country. "David C. Iglesias, who was dismissed as U.S. attorney for New Mexico in December, was one of two chief federal prosecutors invited to teach at a 'voting integrity symposium' in October 2005. The symposium was sponsored by Justice's public integrity and civil rights sections and was attended by more than 100 prosecutors from around the country, according to an account by Iglesias that a department spokesman confirmed." (WashingtonPost, 3/19/07)

FACT: Republican lawmakers pressured U.S.Attorneys to bring indictments against Democrats - and then fired them when they refused.

In New Mexico: "Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico pressured the U.S. attorney in their state to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator, according to two people familiar with the contacts. The alleged involvement of the two Republican lawmakers raises questions about possible violations of House of Representatives and Senate ethics rules and could taint the criminal investigation into the award of an $82 million courthouse contract." (McClatchy, 3/1/07)

And in Seattle: "Another fired prosecutor, John McKay, of Seattle, tells NEWSWEEK that local Republicans pressured him to launch a criminal probe of voting fraud that would tilt a deadlocked Washington governor's race. 'They wanted me to go out and start arresting people,' he says, adding that he refused to do so because there was 'no evidence.' After McKay was fired in December, he says he also got a phone call from a 'clearly nervous' Elston asking if he intended to go public: 'He was offering me a deal: you stay silent and the attorney general won't say anything bad about you.'" (Newsweek, 3/19/07)

***FICTION ON "POLITICAL REASONS"

FICTION: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that no United States Attorney would be replaced for political reasons - or to stop a growing corruption probe. "I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it." (Testimony of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/18/07)

FACT:The Justice Department graded prosecutors on whether they were "loyal bushies". "As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current US Attorneys ... The vast majority of US Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal bushies, etc." (Email from Kyl Sampson, Dept. of Justice, to Deputy White House Counsel David Leitch, as reported by ABC News, 3/15/07)

FACT:\ Rove was asked to fire one of the U.S. Attorneys by the New Mexico Republican Party Chairman. "Presidential advisor Karl Rove and at least one other member of the White House political team were urged by the New Mexico Republican party chairman to fire the state's U.S. attorney because of dissatisfaction in part with his failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation in the battleground election state. 'Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?' Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event that month. 'He's gone,' Rove said, according to Weh. 'I probably said something close to Hallelujah,' said Weh." (McClatchy, 3/10/07)

FACT: Carol Lam served a search warrant on Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, fmr. Executive Director of the CIA, and then became targeted for firing. "The U.S. attorney in San Diego notified the Justice Department of search warrants in a Republican bribery scandal last May 10, one day before the attorney general's chief of staff warned the White House of a 'real problem' with her, a Democratic senator said yesterday. The prosecutor, Carol S. Lam, was dismissed seven months later as part of an effort by the Justice Department and the White House to fire eight U.S. attorneys." (WashingtonPost, 3/19/07)

FACT: Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Gonzales, wanted a nominee to replace Lam immediately upon the expiration of her term. "Sensitivity: Confidential ... Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following: ... The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires." (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to William Kelley, 5/11/06)

***FICTION ON PATRIOT ACT PROCEDURES

FICTION: Attorney General Gonzales claimed the White House had no intention of subverting the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent" role. "Third, I believe fundamentally in the constitutional role of the Senate in advice and consent with respect to U.S. attorneys, and would in no way support an effort to circumvent that constitutional role." (Press Conference by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 3/13/07)

FACT: Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Gonzales's Chief of Staff, and Chris Oprison, of the Office of White House Counsel, openly talked about using their new authority to go around the Senate on the nomination of J. Timothy Griffin in Arkansas.

"(2) 'interim may be a source of confusion or, worse, a term that Pryor's and Lincoln's office can springboard from to press for their own nominee rather than rallying behind Tim. What are your thoughts? If this is a Section 546 AG appointment for unlimited duration, Tim can call himself 'US Attorney' rather than 'interim' or 'acting' and our talkers should avoid referring to him as 'interim.'" (Email from Chris Oprison, Office of White House Counsel, to Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, 12/19/06)

"I think we should gum this to death ... There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?" (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to Chris Oprison, Office of White House Counsel, 12/19/06)

*** FICTION ON ATTORNEY GENERAL'S KNOWLEDGE

FICTION: The Attorney General was unaware of the plan to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. "As we can all imagine, in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions. As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware that there was a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys. That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive." (Press Conference by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 3/13/07)

Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales decided that the U.S. Attorneys should go. "David - Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.' I told him that you would be on the hill all day for the Judge's hearings, and he said the matter was not urgent." (Email from Colin Newman, Office of White House Counsel, to David Leitch, Office of White House Counsel, as reported by ABC News, 3/15/07)

*** FICTION ON KARL ROVE'S INVOLVEMENT

FICTION: The White House claimed it had no involvement in the firing of these eight United States Attorneys. "'The White House did not play a role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys,' said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's counselor, referring to a roster of those who were fired." New York Times, 3/13/07)

FACT: Emails show the White House came up with the plan to dismiss the U.S. Attorneys. "The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today." (WashingtonPost, 3/13/07)

FACT: The idea to fire US Attorneys started in Karl Rove's office. "New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. The e-mails also show how Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel -- weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general. The e-mails put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter." (ABC News, 3/15/07)

FACT: Karl Rove served as a conduit to for political complaints about the U.S.Attorneys. "The White House acknowledged on Sunday that presidential adviser Karl Rove served as a conduit for complaints to the Justice Department about federal prosecutors who were later fired for what critics charge were partisan political reasons." (McClatchy, 3/11/07)

FACT: A capable United States Attorney was replaced with a former aide to Rove. "The Justice Department removed a prosecutor in Arkansas without cause to make room for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove, a senior Justice official conceded in testimony Tuesday ... former U.S. attorney Ed Cummins of Little Rock, has said that he was asked to leave last year to give the job to Griffin, who previously worked for Rove and for the Republican National Committee." (The News-Observer, 2/7/07)

[Dinner]

--- FICTION ON HARRIET MIERS'S INVOLVEMENT

FICTION: White House Senior Advisor Dan Bartlett claimed that the idea to fire U.S. Attorneys originated in the office of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. "And what Harriet floated was the idea of saying should we treat the fifth year as the first year -- give new blood -- an opportunity for new blood to come in. Kyle, to his credit, and others said, that would be highly disruptive to the process, there are a lot of good U.S. attorneys that are performing; some of them have not served full four-year terms because we hadn't removed them all in the first place. So it was appropriate for Harriet to raise the idea; it was quickly rejected." (Press Conference with White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, 3/13/07)

FACT: Kyle Sampson discussed the dismissals with Alberto Gonzales in 2004 - when Gonzales was still the White House Counsel. "Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago ... As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current US Attorneys - the underperforming ones." (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to David Leitch, Deputy White House Counsel, 1/9/05)

FACT: White House emails show idea was discussed by Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, neither dismissed it outright. "David - Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.' I told him that you would be on the hill all day for the Judge's hearing, and he said the matter was not urgent." (Email from Colin Newman, Office of White House Counsel, to David Leitch, Deputy White House Counsel, 1/9/05)

[Dinner]

In other news Former Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles will plead guilty Friday to one count of obstruction of justice in the Jack Abramoff corruption investigation.

Just another convict for the Bush regime. This is exactly the type of stuff the administration was trying to head off by firing US Attorneys and replacing them with "Bushies", to use Karl Rove's term (from an e-mail where they discussed firing US Attorneys who investigated Republican corruption).

[Dinner]

Yet more documents have been found proving that Gonzo deliberately lied to Congress about his involvement in the purge of US Attorneys for political purposes. Gonzo, Rove, and most of the top people in this administration are proven liars so there is no point in listening to them unless they are under oath. That way they can be tried for perjury and lying to Congress when they are once again exposed as liars.

New documents show Gonzales approved firings of U.S. attorneys last fall

By Lara Jakes Jordan
ASSOCIATED PRESS

12:14 a.m. March 24, 2007

WASHINGTON – Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of U.S. attorneys.

On Friday night, however, the Justice Department revealed Gonzales' participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed

The firings of eight prosecutors has since led to a political firestorm and calls for his ouster.

At that meeting, the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials discussed a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Gonzales' aides said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was drafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week.

Another Justice aide closely involved in the dismissals, White House liaison Monica Goodling, has also taken a leave of absence, two officials said.

The five-step plan approved by Gonzales involved notifying Republican home-state senators of the impending dismissals, preparing for potential political upheaval, naming replacements and submitting them to the Senate for confirmation.

Six of the eight prosecutors who were ultimately ordered to resign are named in the plan.

The department released more than 280 documents Friday night, including e-mails, calendar pages and memos to try to satisfy Congress' demands for details on how the firings were handled – and whether they were politically motivated. There are no other meetings on the calendar pages released between that Nov. 27 and Dec. 7, when the attorneys were fired, to indicate Gonzales participated in other discussions on the matter, Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said.

Scolinos said it was not immediately clear whether Gonzales gave his final approval to begin the firings at that meeting. Scolinos also said Gonzales was not involved in the process of selecting which prosecutors would be asked to resign.


Advertisement
On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters he was aware that some of the dismissals were being discussed but was not involved in them.

“I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers – where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew,” Gonzales said last week. “But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general.”

Later, he added: “I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions that I'm not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated.”

The documents were released Friday night, a few hours after Sampson agreed to testify at a Senate inquiry next week into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Asked to explain the difference between Gonzales' comments and his schedule, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the attorney general had relied on Sampson to draw up the plans on the firings.

“The attorney general has made clear that he charged Mr. Sampson with directing a plan to replace U.S. attorneys where for one reason or another the department believed that we could do better,” Roehrkasse said. “He was not, however, involved at the levels of selecting the particular U.S. attorneys who would be replaced.”

Gonzales this week directed the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the circumstances of the firings, officials said. The department's inspector general also will participate in that investigation.

Nonetheless Democrats pounced late Friday.

“Clearly the attorney general was not telling the whole truth, but what is he trying to hide?” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

“If the facts bear out that Attorney General Gonzales knew much more about the plan than he has previously admitted, then he can no longer serve as attorney general,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is heading the Senate's investigation into the firings.

Added House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers:

“This puts the attorney general front and center in these matters, contrary to information that had previously been provided to the public and Congress.”

Presidential spokesman Trey Bohn referred questions to the Justice Department, saying White House officials had not seen the documents.

The developments were not what Republicans, skittish about new revelations, had hoped.

Earlier Friday, a staunch White House ally, Sen. John Cornyn, summoned White House counsel Fred Fielding to Capitol Hill and told him he wanted “no surprises.”

“I told him, 'Everything you can release, please release. We need to know what the facts are,'” Cornyn said.

Sampson will appear Thursday at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his attorney said. “We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States attorneys,” Sampson attorney Brad Berenson wrote in a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department.

New e-mails released Friday indicate that some of Gonzales' most trusted advisers were kept out of the loop in the firings. Scolinos apparently learned about the plans to dismiss attorneys on Nov. 17, 2006 – nearly two years after Sampson and the White House first began talking about replacing prosecutors.

Democrats question whether the eight were selected because they were not seen as, in Sampson's words, “loyal Bushies.”

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070324-0014-firedprosecutors.html

Meanwhile Bush continues to look like the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz who keeps screaming for people not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain despite the fact that Toto had already exposed the charlatan.

[Dinner]

Gonzales Aide to Invoke Fifth Amendment
Email this Story

Mar 26, 4:50 PM (ET)

By LAURIE KELLMAN

Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

The White House, meanwhile, continued to stand by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales despite new calls over the weekend for his resignation and documents that indicate he may have been more involved in the dismissals than he has previously acknowledged.

Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees.

Goodling was Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison until she took a leave of absence earlier this month. She was subpoenaed last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee along with several of Gonzales' other top aides.

There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February.

Dowd said that since then a senior Justice Department official had privately told a member of the Senate committee that he was misled by Goodling and others before testifying.

Gonzales' truthfulness about the firings of seven prosecutors on Dec. 7 and another one months earlier also have been questioned. On March 13 at a news conference, Gonzales denied that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals.

Goodling was one of five senior Justice Department aides who met with Gonzales for that Nov. 27 discussion. Department documents released Friday to Capitol Hill show she attended multiple meetings about the dismissals for months.

She also was among aides who on Feb. 5 helped Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty prepare his testimony for a Senate hearing the next day - during which he may have given Congress incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the circumstances of the firings.

Additionally, Goodling was involved in an April 6, 2006, phone call between the Justice Department and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who had complained to the Bush administration and the president about David Iglesias, then the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque. Domenici wanted Iglesias to push more aggressively on a corruption probe against Democrats before the 2006 elections.

The Justice Department appeared surprised Monday to hear of Goodling's decision on testifying.

Earlier Monday, addressing rumors that department aides would refuse to testify, Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said: "That is incorrect."

Addressing the anticipated testimony of McNulty and Associate Deputy Attorney General Will Moschella - the two who recently appeared, respectively, in Senate and House hearings - Scolinos said the two men "are voluntarily making themselves available to the Hill and plan to fully answer all questions posed to them."

Scolinos had no immediate comment about Goodling's testimony.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that Gonzales "might be accused of being imprecise in what he was saying," but maintained that the attorney general was not closely involved in the firings.

"I understand the concern. I understand that people might think that there are inconsistencies," Perino said. "But as I read it, I think that he has been consistent."The White House is placing the onus on Gonzales to explain his actions to lawmakers, but he is not scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until April 17 - three weeks away.

Speaking to reporters in Orlando, Fla., Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said whether or not Gonzales was fully engaged, "he has lost all credibility with me." Nelson on Sunday joined the ranks of lawmakers in both parties calling for Gonzales to resign.

"Unless he has a good explanation for not only what he knew and when he knew it but also for the ineptitude of the department ... he is a goner," Nelson said of Gonzales. "I think there might be enough Republicans who are calling for his resignation, even before he takes the witness stand."

The Senate committee's senior Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, on Sunday said documents including a Nov. 27 calendar entry that placed the attorney general at a Justice Department meeting to discuss the dismissals "appear to contradict" Gonzales' earlier statements.

But his Nov. 27 schedule, included in a batch of memos sent to Capitol Hill late Friday, showed he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge.

Since the release of that calendar entry on Friday, Justice aides have said Gonzales meant he was not involved in selecting the prosecutors when he said he didn't participate in discussions about their firings.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070326/D8O434EO0.html