Comments (53)

profmarcus wrote on March 20, 2007 3:01 PM:

screw that... leahy ain't gonna buy it...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

global citizen wrote on March 20, 2007 3:01 PM:

I would think that it would be reasonable as well to have the Senator's tongues cut out. Just those in attendance, of course.

Ian wrote on March 20, 2007 3:04 PM:

I think the talking point here should be...If they didn't have anything to hide, they wouldn't be running from testifying under oath. This makes them look guilty--not that they aren't, presumption of innocence and all that....

peacebug wrote on March 20, 2007 3:04 PM:

how fun! we'll talk and say it's the truth, but no way will we take an oath to it.

like that would so fly if the tables were turned.

cheaters. liars. mendaci-toads.

Bearpaw wrote on March 20, 2007 3:05 PM:

This is the Bush Admin's version of a polite working relationship with the Democratic-controlled House: Telling them to fuck off in person, rather than in an email.

Charles wrote on March 20, 2007 3:05 PM:

Seriously, could you say any louder "WE HAVE THINGS TO HIDE!!!" than this?

Phill wrote on March 20, 2007 3:08 PM:

Time for the Democrats to tell the Whitehouse that Rove and Miers will be attending on oath or going to prison.

They cannot force them to say anything but they can force them to take the 5th or attempt to claim executive privilege.

This is an impeachment issue so attempting to claim executive privilege would be a bad idea. Claiming the 5th means that Rove can't work in the WH any more.

SteinL wrote on March 20, 2007 3:08 PM:

Same tactic they used when Cheney and his hand-doll Bush went before the Senate to try and explain away the PDB of August 6, 2001.
Closed chambers, sworn to secrecy, no oath - and the freedom to lie up a storm.

LEN wrote on March 20, 2007 3:09 PM:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

they are just beyond the beyond!

peacebug wrote on March 20, 2007 3:09 PM:

on second thought - rove et al want to do it in camera and off record because they intend to throw lots of folks under the wheels to save their own asses.

what's really funny about it all is that it's so clear that they're the source of the idea. no way would gonzo's CoS have been doing this on his own, and harriet miers couldn't have come up with such an idea by herself.

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 3:11 PM:

Yeah, nice try. How about in exchange for Rove's unsworn testimony behind closed doors, we get to pull all of his fingernails out with pliers?

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 3:11 PM:

Ian: " think the talking point here should be...If they didn't have anything to hide, they wouldn't be running from testifying under oath."

Absolutely. This is textbook GOP drivel used in many illegal search cases that come before the Supreme Court. It's also a favorite talking point of GOP apologists who don't believe the Bill of Rights should be in the Constitution. Throw it back at them.

d

david wrote on March 20, 2007 3:11 PM:

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE do not accept this offer. FORCE them to testify in public and under oath. I don't care how long it takes to get them there JUST MAKE THEM TESTIFY UNDER OATH. After all, if they did nothing wrong..........

skip edwards wrote on March 20, 2007 3:14 PM:

congress needs to go ahead and have the subpoenas ready to be issued. Rove needs grilled about his political game plan!

mxxmo wrote on March 20, 2007 3:14 PM:

if the demos agree to this--they deserve to lose the house, the senate, and the presidency

Robin Boerner wrote on March 20, 2007 3:15 PM:

Fungus hates sunshine, They all have to testify, in public, under oath.

Add in ALL the Patriot act appointees. Makes sure that includes the ones that the MSM has missed so far.

Alaska's Nelson Cohen has some interesting questions to answer under OATH:

1)What exactly was the nature of your appointment as the FBI was raiding Sen. Ted Stevens sons office. At least a thousand questions there alone.

See past TPM posts on the USA's for multiple Corporate Crime Reporter, Alaska Report and Anchorage Daily News stories on Cohen vs. Uncle Ted

2) Why are you refusing to investigate CIVIL RIGHTS violations by the US Army on a 100% service connected DISABLED VETERAN? Even after the US Army assaulted that veteran in a public store in an effort to disrupt a federal lawsuit?
Are Civil Rights and disabled veterans a low priority for Bush Patriot Act US Attoreny Appointees?

See MakeTheArmyHonest.Com for the details on that one.

Karl Rove under oath would pop a vein in Hannity and Limbaugh's head. He has way too much on Bush for him to let little Turd Blossom raise his right hand.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 3:15 PM:

Write your Senator and Representative.

d

Jill wrote on March 20, 2007 3:16 PM:

Time to hammer the point that if they don't have anything to hide, they should not object to testifying in public, under oath. This has nothing to do with terrorism, Al Qaeda, or the war. There is no national security claim the Bush Junta can make.

If the Democrats cave on this one and let Rove and Miers lie behind closed doors and are content with that, I'm finished with them. Done. No vote, no money, no nothing. That will mean they're all on the same side and the nation we've known is dead.

pj wrote on March 20, 2007 3:16 PM:

Yes. The important thing is for Bushco to give Hannity and company something they can claim is cooperation on the Fox Propaganda Network when in fact doing no such thing. There's no national security issue here, although I'm surprised they haven't tried to bring in that claim, so they are slow-rolling and stonewalling while trying to keep up appearances. The trump card of executive privilege is soon to be played.

bruce wrote on March 20, 2007 3:19 PM:

if there ever was a time to use a subpoena.....

wg wrote on March 20, 2007 3:19 PM:

They think they are Above The Law. If you or I were to be questioned on something as simple as a misdimeanor, DO YOU THINK WE could show up and speak unsworn, in private, off the record? Well, maybe if we could hold hands with VP "The Dick" Cheney during questioning.

This is rediculous. These people are an INSULT to America and Americans. They are criminals in high places. Impeach them all.

Jung Patawan wrote on March 20, 2007 3:19 PM:

Dear White House,

F*** you.

Sincerely,

America

enough wrote on March 20, 2007 3:19 PM:

In other words, we are willing to chat but we require the opportunity to be inconsistent in our lies.

Serious question: If the President offers this little chat, can he come back and refuse a subpoena claiming privilege?

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 3:20 PM:

Write Leahy, too.

d

glennpdx wrote on March 20, 2007 3:21 PM:

This is looking more and more like the last bob and weave before a very big fall. The question is only how far it will go. We are already well past DOJ and inside the White House. The last gasp will be the attempt to keep it away from the Decider himself...if they can...

Hey, I thought this might blow over, too. I was so wrong...

crick02478 wrote on March 20, 2007 3:23 PM:

How could they possibly refuse to testify under oath by claiming executive privelege now? Fielding has offered to have them appear, albeit under restricted terms, so wouldn't the executive privelege horse be out of the barn?

EH wrote on March 20, 2007 3:25 PM:

They're trying to fork the story between their testifying and last night's document dump. While people are parsing the emails and such, Fielding raises another controversy by stonewalling the truth. This is the gambit they're running, that nobody will force the issue because there seems to be too many threads going on in light of all of the material released last night.

Don't fall for it. Call your Reps and Sens and calmly but firmly request that they not accept this deal and go back to scouring for evidence in the documents. One story does not obviate the other, and the Fielding Gambit takes only a few minutes to deal with.

CarolSoprano wrote on March 20, 2007 3:29 PM:

I'm worried about Schumer's use of the word "try" ... to me this signifies that they're going to cut a deal. We've seen this kind of thing so many times before - tough talk and then the eventual (and, it seems, inevitable) cave-in to the WH. I'm not optimistic but I will be ecstatic if Schumer (who happens to be my senator) and Leahy hold their ground. Schumer's going to get a call from me, that's for sure.

JTL wrote on March 20, 2007 3:31 PM:

Didn't Leahy just say the other day that he was tired of this kind of "testimony?"

If they agree to this after that, I'll be ashamed of them all.

lip11 wrote on March 20, 2007 3:32 PM:

What a joke! Private, not under oath and no transcript. You've got to be kidding.

If the Dems acquiesce to this, they might as well hang a sign on congress: "Closed - out of business".

Douglas Watts wrote on March 20, 2007 3:39 PM:

for some reason the word "mendacious" popped into my head ...

Douglas Watts wrote on March 20, 2007 3:41 PM:

At least this helps teach Americans the correct spelling and meaning of ... subpoena ...

I learned that word and spelling as a 4th grader from Watergate.

Scandals are educational !!!!

pj wrote on March 20, 2007 3:47 PM:

This is a chess match of major proportions. Fielding's offer was in fact based on executive privilege, just not explicitly couched in those terms. But these are two presidential advisors who Dubya simply cannot allow to testify under oath in open session...if for no other reason than to retain that privilege for the NEXT series of hearings on who knows what. Dubya is in his bunker now and nothing short of impeachment proceedings will shake him loose.

JW wrote on March 20, 2007 3:51 PM:

From CNN:

"The White House will allow the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating how the firing of several U.S. attorneys was handled, Rep. Chris Cannon said Tuesday.

But Rove and Miers will not testify under oath in the matter, Cannon added."

Does this mean the Dems just caved?

ScottW wrote on March 20, 2007 3:52 PM:

Has anyone told them that the Republican Congress has left the building ??

ASC wrote on March 20, 2007 3:52 PM:

Hmmm....the old "if they don't have anything to hide, why wouldn't they want to testify (under oath, of course)" line has been used COUNTLESS times by Rep blow-hards for HOW long? Maybe old Nancy Grace should get ahold of this BS and turn her blow-dried, nasty-a** on ol' Karl and ask him why he won't testi-lie if he's got nothing to hide.

The Dems had better get some serious SPINE and tell the WH "no thanks, but look for our subpoenas on thursday." If the Dems fold on this steaming pile and let it happen I might just check out of giving a crap about ANYTHING political - this is a total no-brainer and the wimp Dems had better not bail!!!

Jean2K wrote on March 20, 2007 4:03 PM:

Closed doors, no transcript, no oath. This wouldn't be a subpoena. Can we call it a "softpoena"? And, the plural form has a certain ring.

Rusty Austin wrote on March 20, 2007 4:09 PM:

Try, my ass. If the Democrats allow this they deserve to lose the next election.

shrubbit wrote on March 20, 2007 4:09 PM:

Won't talk under oath = flat out admission of guilt.

I just hope they finally get cold hard evidence that nails Rove. Finally indict him unlike Plamegate. He should have had his clearance revoked at the start of the Plame investigation b/c he was involved in a criminal conspiracy. And now another. At what point can't people just say "LOOK. There is a pattern. He's doing all of this. Maybe he's doing OTHER things too." And indict and investigate the guy for conspiracy to break the law and Constitution.

I think it's long overdue that there isn't a special prosecutor appointed JUST to investigate all of Rove's dealings since he has been involved in so many criminal conspiracies.

kaleidescope wrote on March 20, 2007 4:11 PM:

Will the White House also insist that Cheney be present while they interview Gonzales?

Phoenix Woman wrote on March 20, 2007 4:16 PM:

Searchable PDFs of the document dump can be found here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/20/1129/05437

Stabular wrote on March 20, 2007 4:18 PM:

Counterproposal: Rove doesn't have to be under oath, but the interrogating officials must have the fexibility they need to be able to get at this very important information. Waterboarding, anyone?

nofltwlt wrote on March 20, 2007 4:28 PM:

Fielding is supposed to be a negotiator not a wishful thinker.

I love what Waxman's committee is accomplishing.

Send Fielding packing.

Subpoena those assholes; we want to know of the rest of their nefarious actions.

No swearing, no transcript, no audience says to Rove, "lie, lie, lie".

Arkansan wrote on March 20, 2007 4:31 PM:

There is a reason the new Democratic congress has an approval rating which is worse than the President’s. That reason is that people hoped things would be different now, and the Democrat's behavior this session have been a bitter disappointment.

If they don’t do the right thing on this because of the national interest, perhaps saving their sorry jobs will motivate them.

anon wrote on March 20, 2007 4:46 PM:

...Schumer's use of the word "try"...

I noted that as well. And like I trust Schumer to do the right thing. Not. I suspect he'll step back and at the same time negotiate a compromise of some sort.

Jim wrote on March 20, 2007 5:09 PM:

The man who campaigned as the Great Uniter, and declared himself the Great Decider, will burn in history as the Great Divider with all of the catastrophic consequences that are escalating every hour, of every day.

How pathetic that as the sun begins to set on his failed Presidency, he blames the people of our Nation, saying we have some psychological trauma rather than learning the lessons of his enormous mistakes. He will never understand that a grateful nation would rise with relief, if he only had the wisdom to learn and change, and a grateful world will rise with relief, when his days in
office are done.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to create fear throughout the land, rather than bravery, courage and valor.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to launch partisan and dishonest attacks on genuine American war heroes because they happen to be members of the other political party.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 as a reason to become the only President in our history to become a world-wide advocate for torture and detention practices that every leader, of every democratic nation, everywhere in the world, has publicly or privately pleaded with
him to abandon.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for showing contempt for the advice of our military commanders by allowing the man he compares to Hitler, to escape from Tora Bora, to pursue an obsessive war in Iraq, that many of those same commanders warned him about, while he publicly claimed he always follows their advice.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for treating the Chief of Staff of the Army with ridicule and contempt, when General Shinseki so honorably tried to warn him.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history, for putting his hand on the Bible and pledging to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution while using 9-11 to claim the unilateral power to break it.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history by accepting the sacred duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land, while using 9-11 to create fears to claim the unilateral powers to violate them.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for dishonoring a spirit that had Democrats and Republicans singing God Bless America at the doors of our Capitol, to personally promote a politics so venomous, vile and vindictive that he fills the air with talk of treason and enemies lists compiled by hate filled supporters.

Even when one of his media partisans slanders the Army that landed at Normandy and the Marines who took Iwo Jima with preposterous falsehoods that they committed war crimes, the self-styled war president lacks the moral integrity to speak out, for fear of offending what he proudly regards as his base.

Even when the trailer park trash of American politics slanders and demeans some widows of 9-11, this partisan who promised to bring honor and integrity to Washington lacks the moral stature to speak out, even against that.

George W. Bush will be morally impeached by the court of history for trying to frighten our people into war with Iraq, with tall tales of Saddam Hussein working with Osama Bin Laden to create mushroom clouds of nuclear extermination that would kill the people of New York.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to fan the flames of fear so violently, that at one point, the Capital City of the land of the free and the home of the brave was turned into a panicked hutch of rabbits running to the stores for duct tape, gas masks, bottled water, and bullet proof vests while the Vice-President of the United States fled to hiding spots at undisclosed locations.

How ironic, how pathetic, and how fitting that as America prepares to honor the heroes of 9-11 the Senate Intelligence Committee issues a report detailing fraudulent exploitation of false intelligence, one of America's national networks exploits 9-11 with a docu-fraud of falsehoods, while our "wartime" President exploits 9-11 one more time, with one more taxpayer financed tour of fear, desperately trying to win one more national election.

Five years ago some of the finest Americans who God ever put on this earth gave their lives for their brothers and sisters, for their neighbors and families, for the country that they and we love so much, so deeply and so passionately.

No one ever took a poll to determine whether these American heroes were Democrats or Republicans, because it does not matter.

Dennis wrote on March 20, 2007 5:42 PM:

We had another unsworn, unrecorded hearing behind closed doors, remember? Bush and Cheney went hand in hand almost literally behind closed doors with a congressional committee to discuss what led up to the attack on Iraq.

The Bushes have had a lot of rope and are now tripping all over the place, and the democrats are fools if they take anything less than a sworn hearing.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

pj wrote on March 20, 2007 6:46 PM:

As predicted, Dubya has shown his trump card...executive privilege. He believes that no court would rule against the executive privilege of the dicta... whoops! unitary executive. Especially one he's already stacked...and probably checked with beforehand. He is daring the Dems to try. Only a criminal indictment of turdblossom or Miers or impeachment proceedings will bust him out of his bunker. He has given the Dems the opportunity to tuck tail and waddle off. Vegas is setting odds right now.

pointus wrote on March 20, 2007 11:18 PM:

EVERYBODY call Schumer's office and hold his feet to the fire:
NO DEALS. Subpoena public testimony, under oath. If they claim exec. privilege, take it to the USSC. If the court rules for bush/rove, at least the real fight has begun. Impeachment is in the wind, much like spring.

FatKat wrote on March 20, 2007 11:38 PM:

this is from yahoo news and put out by Majority leader Reid.

WASHINGTON, March 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement on the Bush administration's efforts to prevent White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove from testifying under oath on the partisan firing of U.S. Attorneys.

"After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness."

A fact sheet follows.

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." [Washington Post, 2/18/07]

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 [a] 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. [She] 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 (news, bio, voting record) 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 (news, bio, voting record) (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 (news, bio, voting record) and Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record) 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 [J. Timothy] Griffin, who previously worked for Rove and for the
Republican National Committee." (The News-Observer, 2/7/07)

---

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)

CONTACT: Jim Manley / Rodell Mollineau, (202) 224-2939

SOURCE Senate Democratic Communications Center

Kimberly wrote on March 21, 2007 10:52 AM:

What could they have to hide? Without sworn public testimony, we can only speculate, so here goes...

They originally wanted to fire all the USAs, but then decided that would be too disruptive, (read, attract too much attention). Then they thought about getting rid of 15 to 20 percent all at once. They apparently thought that would also cause too much of a stir. So they settled on these 7 "underperformers" as test cases for their shiney new power to avoid senate advice and consent.

Senator Arlen Specter's chief counsel, Michael O'Neill, inserted this provision into the Patriot Act at the request of Department of Justice it's self. The plot thickens!

(Maybe Michael O'Neill should receive one of those subpoenas. And maybe Senator Spector should recuse himself from further participation in these hearings.)

Maybe these test cases were the first step in a plan to eventually replace all USAs with Bush cronies whose loyalty was unquestionably to Bush. Once all were in place, they would have a republican led scandal machine to be used ahead of the '08 elections to selectively smear democrats.

Remember, Rove has promised a "permanent republican majority". A scandal machine like this would go a long way in putting one in place.

andrey@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 12:29 PM:

jeremy sumpter penis

juddy@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 2:56 AM:

hello