« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Senate Committee Requests Testimony from Ousted Prosecutors
Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) wrote to six of the firied U.S. attorneys this afternoon, requesting their testimony before the committee Tuesday morning.
"If you refuse to appear and insist upon receiving a subpoena," the letters read, "the Committee will proceed to authorize its issuance."
The committee has scheduled a hearing on the U.S attorney firings for 10 AM Tuesday; it's unclear, however, whether the four U.S. attorneys already subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify Tuesday afternoon would accept the Senate committee's request. If they did not, the committee would vote Thursday on whether to issue the subpoenas.
In addition to the four former U.S. attorneys subpoenaed by the House (San Diego's Carol Lam, Seattle's John McKay, New Mexico's David Iglesias and Arkansas' Bud Cummins), the Senate also sent letters to Nevada's Daniel Bogden and Arizona's Paul Charlton. All six attorneys reportedly received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department sometime before being fired.
Josh
Zachary
I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and subpoena. They're putting these former USA's on the spot: obviously, many of them want to tell their stories, but they don't want to be seen as volunteering the information.
March 2, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn is right on. Give them subpoenas so they can avoid being labeled as stool pigeons.
March 2, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't they subpoena Kevin Ryan, USA of Northern California? He was fired too at a time when his office was investigating the state's top democrat but had not yet issued any indictments.
March 2, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
How chicken!! These are former, Republican administration-appointed US Attorneys, being asked to speak about potentially corrupt, or at least politically threatening, acts of high officials in their own party.
Leahy and Specter's committee knows full well the problems these attorneys will incur if they "volunteer" information. They include the lifelong risks to future Republican appointments or elected office. It knows how easily it could reduce those risks by issuing subpoenas, the forms for which are within reach without their standing up.
If Democrats continue to show this weak, UN-pro-active leadership, they will not win majorities in 2008. They will be laughed out of office.
March 2, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to Bob: just what are you talking about?
Kevin Ryan is held by many to have run "a dysfunctional office that led to the departure of several attorneys."
From Business Week: there’s also been much talk about an exodus of veteran prosecutors and others during his tenure, and criticism of his management style (check out this piece from a while back in SF Weekly). Sources tell me that Ryan, as the SF Weekly story suggests, got plenty of negative feedback in an internal review earlier this year.
The link for the SF Weekly story is:
http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2006-10-04/news/feature.html
His biggest cases seem to have been the BALCO steroids mess and the investigation or back-dating of stock options (primarily in Silicon Valley).
And just who is California's "top democrat" whom Ryan is supposed to be investigating? Would that be John Garamendi? I can't find anything on Google about any such investigation. Any chance you could clarify?
March 2, 2007 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Iglesias of NEW MEXICO! Correction needed.
March 2, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This administration has foolishly squandered the support of eight of its top lawyers - and all those supporting them and many watching from the sidelines - by hiding behind accusations that the reason for their dismissal was "poor performance".
A charge they have to fight, no matter how loyal they would like to be, because it would otherwise permanently dog their careers.
This is the same, if somewhat less dangerous to national security, treatment the OVP meted out to Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.
The Senate should make it easy for them to appear and fully testify, rather than just provide yes or no answers as if they were an opposing party or hostile witness.
Apart from the simple embarrassment factor, not worth a committee hearing, these attorneys, once potential stars for their party, may have information that could lead to public discipline for two members of Congress. Their testimony might lead to more serious disclosures. It might also lead to less intimidation and less politicization of ostensibly public service jobs during Mr. Cheney's two-year-long duck season.
If Mr. Leahy is so tentative on this issue, how on earth could he be trusted to tackle more threatening or substantive issues? Tell me, how?
March 2, 2007 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they're being given the opportunity to go on record as not being *willing* witnesses? (I agree that subpoenas are necessary as a measure of protection for these prosecutors.)
March 2, 2007 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it a little ironic and sickening that Spector is participating in this at all seeing as he stuck in the provision that got the USAs fired in the first place?
March 2, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kim McCall, good article from the SF Weekly on Kevin Ryan. Ryan seems like a lawyer who spends time only on what interests him personally or promotes his self-image. That does not seem to include learning how to manage and motivate a hundred lawyers plus staff. His decision to choose and back Ms. Choi seemed pretty much of a screw you to his entire staff.
Makes one think that Karl threw in a USA that needed to go, one who was obviously a bogus political hack, in an effort to distract attention away from whomever he really wanted wanted out.
March 2, 2007 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the results of the November election I don't see why Democrats are so reluctant to issue subpoenas. Abu Gonzales has been stone-walling Congress on a number of fronts. They request information from the Justice Department and get nothing but lame excuses about why it's taking so long to comply. Have Democrats been out of power so long, so used to deffering to a vindictive Unitary Executive Authority that they have developed a subconscious fear of using subpoena power? To be fair, some of them, like Leahy, still have a vivid memory of the anthrax mailed to their offices...suspect still at large. But it really is time to start showing some guts.
March 3, 2007 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Carol Lam was getting too close to another San Diego Congressional scandal -- something reported both here at TPM (see link below) and in a January 29 front-page story in the WSJ.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000358.php
March 4, 2007 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh thank you thank you Senator Leahy for being one of the few who are willing to fight this corrupt administration.
March 4, 2007 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The begining of the end is nigh for BushCo .Gonzales will be the first to go down ,whether by resignantion or impeachment.The Democrats have a substantively deep bench that will do us proud -watch Congressional Leaders Waxman , Sanchez, & Emmaunel, all three will not be intimidated by these unlawful miscreants.
Remember too that at every turn the Republicans are deserting BushCo - for example Cong . Darrel Issa (R) has called what Gonzales has done re the USA unlawful - repeating unlawful.
This USA firing controversy ,amomg others , will also help the Democratic Leadership bring the misbeggotten Iraqi Debacle to a close. All of this criminal activity is linked ,its all part & parcel to the Neo Thugs agenda.
The Progressives must be wise , thoughful , & have patience- we did not get into this mess overnight - we will need more then the first hundred and fifty days of the new Congress to rememdy our outstsanding problems wrought by Bush Co.
As one other smart poster stated earlier this week "patience , Grasshopppers !!}
March 5, 2007 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink