posted March 16, 2007 06:29 PM            

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 16, 2007; A02

The Justice Department advocated in early 2005 removing up to 20 percent of the nation's U.S. attorneys whom it considered to be "underperforming" but retaining prosecutors who were "loyal Bushies," according to e-mails released by Justice late yesterday.

The three e-mails also show that presidential adviser Karl Rove asked the White House counsel's office in early January 2005 whether it planned to proceed with a proposal to fire all 93 federal prosecutors. Officials said yesterday that Rove was opposed to that idea but wanted to know whether Justice planned to carry it out.

The e-mails provide new details about the early decision-making that led to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year, indicating that Justice officials endorsed a larger number of firings than has been disclosed and that Rove expressed an early interest in the debate over the removals.

The messages also show that an internal administration push to remove a large number of federal prosecutors was well underway even as Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, was preparing for Senate hearings on his nomination to be attorney general.

Gonzales talked "briefly" in December 2004, the messages show, with D. Kyle Sampson, who would become his chief of staff at Justice, about the plan to remove U.S. attorneys. Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said Gonzales has "no recollection" of discussing the prosecutors' firings at the time, when he was preparing for his January 2005 confirmation hearings.

The dismissals, and the Bush administration's shifting explanations for them, led a growing number of lawmakers to demand Gonzales's resignation this week. Justice Department documents released Tuesday refuted the contention that the White House was not closely involved.

A second Republican, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), called for Gonzales's ouster yesterday. Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) said Wednesday that Gonzales should resign.

"The senator believes, as a matter of credibility, it would be most helpful to have an attorney general we can have full confidence in," said Lindsay Jackson, Smith's spokeswoman.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), one of six Democrats to support Gonzales's confirmation, also demanded his resignation after learning of e-mails that showed Justice officials actively planning to circumvent Pryor on the replacement for a fired Little Rock U.S. attorney in 2006. Pryor said Gonzales had told him that there was no attempt to avoid his input.

None of the three new e-mails is from Rove himself. They are part of a string of e-mail correspondence between other officials that ended with Sampson, at the time counselor to Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, offering the White House counsel's office four reasons the notion of removing all of the country's chief federal prosecutors was a bad idea.

Instead, Sampson wrote, "we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys -- the underperforming ones . . . The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc."

But in regard to the idea of firing all U.S. attorneys, Sampson wrote: "That said, if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."

Sampson resigned this week after the Justice Department said he did not inform other senior officials of his communications with the White House in 2005 and 2006 about firing the prosecutors. That may have led them to provide incomplete information in testimony to lawmakers.

The first e-mail, dated Jan. 6, 2005, is from a White House counsel's office assistant. It indicates that Rove had stopped by that office to ask lawyer David Leitch whether a decision had been made to keep the U.S. attorneys in their jobs. The e-mail does not suggest that Rove advocated one outcome over another.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the e-mail matches Rove's account earlier this week that he vaguely remembers hearing about the idea of firing the 93 U.S. attorneys shortly after the 2004 election from Harriet E. Miers, then the nominee to replace Gonzales as White House counsel.

Rove once again defended the firings yesterday in a speech to students at Troy University and said the "super-heated rhetoric" criticizing the administration was not justified, the Associated Press reported.

Also yesterday, the Justice Department notified the Senate Judiciary Committee that four senior aides, including Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, would be made available to Senate investigators. The committee had authorized subpoenas for the four officials and Sampson.

posted March 20, 2007 09:49 PM            

A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

He added that federal prosecutors work for him and it is natural to consider replacing them. "There is no indication that anybody did anything improper," the president said.

Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me," Bush said.

The Senate, meanwhile, voted to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.

Several Democrats, including presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden and John Edwards, have called for Gonzales' ouster or resignation. So have a handful of Republican lawmakers.

"What happened in this case sends a signal really through intimidation by purge: 'Don't quarrel with us any longer,'" said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (news, bio, voting record), D-R.I., a former U.S. attorney who spent much of Monday evening paging through 3,000 documents released by the Justice Department.

Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies — but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.

The president cast the offer as virtually unprecedented and a reasonable way for Congress to get all the information it needs about the matter.

"If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed," Bush said. "If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see."

Bush said he would aggressively fight in court any attempt to subpoena White House aides.

"If the staff of a president operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served," he said. "I'm sorry the situation has gotten to where it's got, but that's Washington, D.C., for you. You know there's a lot of politics in this town."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is leading the Senate probe into the firings, spoke dismissively of the deal offered by the White House:

"It's sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving us the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here."

Even without oaths, Bush aides would be legally required to tell the truth to Congress. But without a transcript of their comments, "it would be almost meaningless to say that they would be under some kind of legal sanction," Schumer complained.

Fielding's meeting on Capitol Hill came a few hours after Bush spoke with Gonzales in an early morning phone call — their first conversation since the president had acknowledged mistakes by his longtime friend and lawmakers of both parties had called for Gonzales' ouster.

The White House offered to arrange interviews with Rove, Miers, deputy White House counsel William Kelley and J. Scott Jennings, a deputy to White House political director Sara Taylor, who works for Rove.

"Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas," Fielding said in a letter to the Senate and House Judiciary committees and their ranking Republicans.

He said documents released by the Justice Department "do not reflect that any U.S. attorney was replaced to interfere with a pending or future criminal investigation or for any other improper reason."
Link
_____________________________________________________________________________________

posted March 21, 2007 07:06 PM            

Commander Corruption fired 93 of the 94 US Attorneys when he entered office in 1993. Among those he fired was the US Attorney investigating Dan Rostenkowski in the House Bank scandal. Rostenkowski, years later, pled guilty to mail fraud and served about a year and a half in prison. Commander Corruption pardoned Rostenkowski in 2000.

Another US Attorney happened to be investigating Commander Corruption and his corrupt wife Hillary in Arkansas. This US Attorney was fired and a Clinton crony was installed...a former law student of Commander Corruption's.

Now, the last is a clear conflict of interest. I didn't hear a peep out of brain dead leftist moron democrats when that happened.

Bush needs to tell these whining, carping, shrieking pants wetters to stuff it. US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

posted March 26, 2007 09:43 PM            

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
United States House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Leahy and Chairman Conyers:

Yesterday President Bush asserted that the White House would give Congress 'unprecedented" access to information regarding the Administration's recent dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. This statement is misinformed. As you continue discussions with the White House regarding your investigation of the U.S. Attorneys matter, I wanted to bring to your attention relevant precedent.

The President said yesterday that he would not allow White House aides including Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, deputy counsel William Kelley, and political aide J. Scott Jennings testify under oath and on the record about the dismissal of the U.S. Attorneys. Contrary to the President's contention, there is extensive precedent for officials in these positions to appear before Congress.

When Republicans controlled Congress during the Clinton Administration, they routinely insisted that White House officials appear before Congress. During the prior Administration, a series of White House Counsels testified to congressional committees publicly and under oath:

The Honorable Patrick Leahy
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
March 21,2007
Page 2

ln 1994, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum testified before the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs regarding the "Whitewater" matter.1 In l996, he was deposed under oath on two separate days by the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight as part of the White Travel Office investigation.2

In 1994, White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler testified before the House Committee On Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs regarding the "'Whitewater" matter.3

ln 1997, White House Counsel Jack Quinn was deposed under oath by the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight as part of an investigation into campaign finance activities.4

ln 1997, White House Counsel Charles Ruff testified before the House Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight as part of an investigation into campaign finance activities.5 Mr. Ruff testified again before the Committee in 2000 as part of an investigation into the White House email system.6 Mr. Ruff also testified before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs as qart of the Committee's 1997-1998 investigation into campaign finance activities.7

1 Nussbaum Tells of Calm Reaction to Whitewater, LosAngeles Times (July 29, 1994).
2 Committee on Government Reform and Oversi ght, Deposition of Bernard W. Nussbaum (June 12, 1996, July 11, 1996).
3 Nussbaum Tells of Calm Reaction to Whitewater, Los Angeles Times (July 29, 1994).
4 House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Deposition of Jack Quinn (Nov. 4, 1997).
5 House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Testimony of Charles Ruff, Hearing on White House Compliance with Committee Subpoenas (Nov. 6-7, 1997) (H.Rept. 105-61).
6 House Committee on Govemment Reform, Testimony of Charles Ruff, Hearing on Missing White House E-Mails: Mismanagement of Subpoenaed Records (May 4, 2000) (H.Rept. 106-179).
7 Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Final Report: Investigation of lllegal or Improper Activities in Connectionwith 1996 Federal Electíon Campaígns, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (Mar. 10, 1998) (S. Rept. 105-67).

The Honorable Patrick Leahy
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
March 21,2007
Page 3

o In 2000, White House Counsel Beth Nolan testified before the House Committee on Government Reform as part of an investigation into the White House email system.8 Ms. Nolan testified again before the Committee in 2001 as part of an investigation into President Clinton's pardon decisions.9

o In 1997, White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. McLarty was deposed by the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight as part of an investigation into campaign finance activities. 10

o In 1998, White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles was deposed by the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight as part of an investigation into the use of the President's holiday card list.11

o In 2001, White House Chief of Staff John Podesta testified before the House Committee on Govemment Reform as part of an investigation into President Clinton's pardon decisions. 12

The Honorable Patrick Leahy
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
March 2I,2007
Page 4

Deputy Counsel to the President,14 Director of Political Affairs,15 and Chief of Staff to the Vice President.l6

The President is also mistaken in his contention that Congress has not received communications between White House aides. In fact, there is extensive precedent for providing these communications to Congress when they are pertinent to an investigation. For example:

o The Clinton White House provided the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight with thousands of pages of White House e-mails, including e-mails between the Vice President and his staff; during the Committee's investigation into the White House email system.l7

o The Clinton White House provided the House Govemment Reform and Oversight Committee with notes taken by White House counsel reflecting attomey-client communications,18 during the Committee's investigation into campaign finance activities. The Clinton White House also provided the Committee a memo containing legal advice from the Vice President's counsel to the Vice President.19

The Honorable Patrick Leahy
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
March 2I,2007
Page 5

between White House aides on global climate change policy.20 And last Friday, the director of the office of security for the White House appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and responded to questions about communications between his office and top White House aides.2l

Last year, my staff prepared a report that provides additional detail on precedent regarding White House cooperation with congressional oversight requests.22 I am attaching this document for your background.

I hope that this information helps provide perspective on the current position of the White House regarding responding to congressional investigations.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Enclosure

________________
20 House Committee on Oversight and Goverirnent Reform, Hearing on Political Interference with Science: Global Warming (Part II) (Mat. 19, 2007).
21 House Committee on Oversight and Govemment Reform, Testimony of James Knodell, Director, Office of Security, the White House, Hearing on White House Procedures for Safeguarding Classified Information (Mar. 16, 2007).
22 Committee on Government Reform Minority Staff, Congressional Oversight of the Clinton Admínistration (Jan. 17, 2006).

posted March 26, 2007 10:07 PM            

In the case of the firing of US Attorney's by Bush..or his designate, there is no underlying crime alleged and the President has the full authority under the Constitution of take the actions he took to remove and replace them.

This is a wholly whipped up scandal by desperate democrats where there is no crime or even a whiff of crime to investigate.

It doesn't matter who Bush talked to or what they told him. Bush is fully authorized to fire any US Attorney for any reason or no reason whatsoever. They serve at the pleasure of the President.

posted March 29, 2007 03:07 PM            

In a short report by Globe Staffer, Rick Klein, the Globe finds no room for any discussion of Clinton or Carter's firings -- par for the course for this shallowly reported story.

WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy yesterday accused President Bush of using the Department of Justice to further his administration's "right-wing ideology," saying that veteran prosecutors were replaced by political operatives in key states to ensure that "reliable partisans" are in place in time for the 2008 presidential election.

The Globe quotes Kennedy as saying "at least two" of Bush's AGs were fired because they "refused to investigate spurious claims of voter fraud that were initiated by Republicans".

The piece also quotes Senator Patrick Leahy (D, Vt) to the effect that they will continue this witch hunt even if Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigns and Senator Chuck Schumer (D,NY) who is looking for a "smoking gun".

The story also reports that a former chief of staff to AG Gonzales will be "grilled" about this faux scandal.

Lawmakers said they plan to grill D. Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, about the firings and about the involvement of Gonzales and White House officials in the decision-making.

Lots of indignation there, eh?

And not a word from the other side of the issue for balance.

Of course, we on Newsbusters know that the ginning up of this "scandal" is all smoke and mirrors meant solely as an attack on president Bush, to weaken him and to further destroy the GOPs chances in 2008.

We also all know that every president has the Constitutional right to fire any or all the U.S. Attorneys just like Clinton did. But, it wasn't just Clinton, apparently. Even Jimmy Carter while in the White House fired an attorney that was making things too warm for one of the members of his party, making the action purely political in nature. And he lied about it to the people.

Human Events has a story detailing Carter's political firing of a U.S. Attorney in 1978: "Marston: Carter 'Lied Then, Lies Now' on U.S. Attorneys Firing".

Former President Jimmy Carter “lied then” about firing a U.S. attorney in 1978 investigating Democratic officials in Philadelphia and “lies now” in condemning the Bush Administration’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys and calling for Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales to go.

John Gizzi of Human Events reveals how unconcerned over this political firing a Democrat controlled Congress was in 1978.

What does Dave Marston think? “He’s trying to rewrite history,” was the response of the 64-year-old former prosecutor to the President who fired him. “Under the standard he has imposed on Gonzales, the President should have fired Atty. Gen. Griffin Bell in 1978.” Although it is so far unclear how much Gonzales knew about what the U.S. prosecutors were working on when they were forced out and what reasons were behind their exits, Marston pointed out that then-Rep. Joshua Eilberg (D.-Pa.) had actually called Carter on November 4, 1977 to demand Marston’s ouster and that the Prsident, in turn, called Bell and told him to “hurry up” in finding a new U.S. attorney in Philadelphia. Eilberg himself was the subject of a corruption probe by Marston’s office and, as Marston recalled to me, “the Justice Department was aware of this because I told Russell Baker [Bell’s top aide] that Eilberg was under investigation. And Russell Baker, who was a stand-up guy, confirmed this.”

A significant difference between his situation and those of the fired U.S. attorneys that Marston pointed out to me was that “Democrat controlled Congress in 1978 and did not investigate a Democratic President. Today, they control Congress and they will investigate the Republican Administration.”

And how president Carter lied about it... causing no furor.

In reviewing the transcript of Carter’s “Today” interview, Marston pointed out that the opening segment featured a clip of Carter from a news conference on January 12, 1978 in which he is asked about the Marston sacking and says: “I’ve not interfered at all.”

“That was on January 12th,” the former prosecutor pointed out, “and yet the evidence shows that he had called his attorney general about replacing me two months earlier.

Do you think we will see more on this story of Jimmy Carter firing a U.S. Attorney for political reasons in future stories about the Gonzales firings?