U.S. Attorneys

Gonzales Apologizes to USAs

Paul Kiel | March 17, 2007, 9:37AM

The apology, of course, was to the 93 sitting U.S. attorneys, not the eight who deserve it. From McClatchy:

Gonzales apologized to the prosecutors not for the firings but for their execution, including for inaccurate public statements about poor job performance, according to people familiar with the afternoon conference call.

I wonder if those "inaccurate public statements" he's referring to include statements to Congress?

U.S. Attorneys

NPR: Gonzales Wanted Fallback Gig for Sampson

Paul Kiel | March 17, 2007, 9:28AM

Apparently Alberto Gonzales thought this whole thing would just blow over.

NPR has learned that the Attorney General’s chief of staff [Kyle Sampson] resigned from his position this week, the Justice Department took steps to establish him as an attorney elsewhere in the building....he only resigned from the department on Tuesday, when the scandal surrounding eight fired U.S. Attorneys continued to grow.

U.S. Attorneys

Sampson: I Failed to Organize "Political Response"

Paul Kiel | March 17, 2007, 9:11AM

Boy, has Kyle Sampson learned his lesson, or what? He hasn't resigned because of his role in a scheme to fire prosecutors for political reasons, oh no: he resigned because he didn't succeed in organizing "a more effective political response" to the charges of impropriety. No wonder people thought he'd be the next Karl Rove.

His lawyer, Bradford Berenson put out the following statement last night:

"Kyle did not resign because he had misled anyone at the Justice Department or withheld information concerning the replacement of the U.S. Attorneys. He resigned because, as Chief of Staff, he felt he had let the Attorney General down in failing to appreciate the need for and organize a more effective political response to the unfounded accusations of impropriety in the replacement process. The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject for several years was well-known to a number of other senior officials at the Department, including others who were involved in preparing the Department's testimony to Congress. If this background was not called to Mr. McNulty or Mr. Moschella's attention, it was not because any of these individuals deliberately withheld it from them but rather because no one focused on it or deemed it important at the time. The focus of preparation efforts was on why the U.S. Attorneys had been replaced, not how."

Alberto Gonzales has publicly blamed Sampson for his "mistake" of not sharing "information that he had" with those testifying before Congress.

But according to Sampson, everybody knew. The officials who were about to testify just didn't ask around -- because, he says, they were focused on the "why," not the "how." I think I'd need another statement from Sampson, though, before I could understand how the White House's involvement isn't part of the answer to the question: "Why did the Justice Department fire eight U.S. attorneys?"

Or maybe it's more that they just didn't "deem it important" at the time.

Funny thing, though. They didn't deem it important when preparing for testimony, but that didn't stop Justice Department official William Moschella from telling the House Judiciary subcommittee under oath that the White House was not consulted on the firings until the end of the process. I guess he just assumed?

Looks like Sampson doesn't like playing the fall guy.

Update: A revised statement drops the idea that DoJ officials didn't "deem" the White House role "important," and whereas before Sampson was regretting his inability to concoct an "effective politcal response" to the charges of impropriety, the word "political" has disappeared. After all, it's politics that got the DoJ into this mess.

As TPM Reader HR puts it: "Did someone go over his original release with a sharp blue pencil?"

U.S. Attorneys

White House to Dems: No Documents for You This Week

Paul Kiel | March 16, 2007, 4:56PM

From a release just out from House Judicary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI):

"The White House Counsel's office advised us this afternoon that the White House would not be providing documents to the Committee, or providing the White House's position with respect to the Committee securing the testimony of White House officials today. This is contrary to earlier expectations that the Committee would receive these answers and documents today and is, therefore, very disappointing. The Counsel's office has assured me that they will continue to work in good faith to get answers to those questions by early next week.

Despite those assurances and my continued hope that the White House will resolve these questions in a cooperative fashion, the Committee must take steps to ensure that we are not being stonewalled or slow walked on this matter. I will schedule a vote to issue subpoenas next week for the documents and officials we need to talk to. Allegations that our criminal justice system has been undermined by partisan politics and that the Congress was deceived about these activities are among the most serious this Congress will consider and we expect immediate answers."

From Subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez (D-CA):

"The White House is playing a dangerous game of chicken. The House Judiciary Committee has been operating in good faith to get to the bottom of this growing scandal, and Chairman Conyers has shown particular restraint in working towards voluntary cooperation."

A vote will be scheduled next week on issuing subpoenas to Karl Rove, Rove's deputy Scott Jennings, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Deputy Counsel William Kelley, and possibly others.

Update: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says, “It is disappointing that the White House is not coming forward with their plan to bring witnesses to testify. We hope that this delay is not a signal they will not cooperate.”

U.S. Attorneys

Ousted USA: DoJ Smeared USAs with "Fabricated Assertions"

Paul Kiel | March 16, 2007, 4:08PM

Speaking by phone today, former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins made his view of the Justice Department's firing of seven other U.S. attorneys perfectly clear: not only did the DoJ not fire them for performance-related reasons, but they fabricated such issues to cover that up.

Cummins is a unique case of the eight prosecutors, since the Justice Department has admitted that he was dismissed for no other reason than to give former aide to Karl Rove, Timothy Griffin, a job.

"I've heard every one of the [Justice Department's "performance related" issues with the other dismissed US attorneys], and I'm completely convinced at this point that they are fabricated assertions, and that they were in no way on the table when the decisions to dismiss those seven USAs were made," he told me, continuing:

"I gave them the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of this. They told me directly that my case was completely different from the others, that there were significant performance issues involved in the other decisions, and if I saw, I'd agree that they'd have to go.

Now that I've seen the decisions, not only don't I see why they had to go, I see that [the charges of performance issues] are really not true."

Cummins, who is a lifelong Republican, even running for the House once in the nineties, says that this was a ""reluctant conclusion," but one he was forced to reach, and one he felt compelled to speak out about.

"When they made the decision to lie about these seven people to Congress, that's when the trouble started," he said.. Cummins added that if the Justice Department were to retract the statements that the others were fired for deficiencies in performance, "I'll disappear."

U.S. Attorneys

Snow: Loyalty to Bush Means "To Do Our Jobs"

Paul Kiel | March 16, 2007, 3:40PM

From today's press briefing:

Q: Tony, you had said that politics and loyalty didn't play a part in this.

Snow: Yes, and let me... you know, there's been a lot of conversation about loyalty. So let me -- I don't want to -- we'll just begin with a caveat: I do not know precisely what Kyle Sampson had in mind when he used the term.

But let me tell you how the term applies in this White House, which is that certainly we all serve at the pleasure of the president. We're loyal to the president in that sense. But the president's charge to each one of us is to do our jobs -- to do our jobs, to perform the public trust.

That also means to follow the principles and the priorities of the administration.

When it comes to the administration of justice, the president lays down broad guidelines, when it comes to U.S. attorneys, broad prosecutorial guidelines. Those guidelines may shift from district to district. There are 93 around that country that have different priorities.

But if somebody has difficulty, or somebody decides, for reasons of conscience or whatever, that they disagree with the key priority, whether it be like something like the death penalty or pornography statutes or whatever, that's certainly a suitable basis for review.

But, again, the most important principle here is people do serve at the pleasure of the president.

It seems that Snow's polishing up his riff on loyalty, first auditioned during this morning's gaggle.

Update: More below....

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Cummins: GOPer Probe Didn't Lead to Firing

Paul Kiel | March 16, 2007, 3:34PM

Earlier, we noted an article in today's Los Angeles Times, which quoted former U.S. attorney Bud Cummins as wondering whether his forced resignation had anything to do with his office's investigation into Missouri's Republican governor Matt Blunt.

In response, Cummins wrote in to TPMm, wanting to make it clear that " I do not know of any connection whatsoever to the Missouri investigation and my firing. I am not asking myself (or anyone else) about that."

We've posted his entire email below.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Snow: "It's Performance"

Paul Kiel | March 16, 2007, 2:02PM

See Tony spin the email by Kyle Sampson released yesterday. Sampson wrote in the email, to refresh your memory that "80-85 percent [of the United States attorneys], I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc."

From this morning's press gaggle:

QUESTION: Tony, you addressed this yesterday, the question about loyalty and how much that factors in ... into the role U.S. attorneys play. You know, these emails are coming out, and this other one about their Bushies, et cetera. What is the role of loyalty in how U.S. attorneys perform?

SNOW: Again, if you want to take a look ... let's first go back to that particular memo, because in the sentence before it says, "This is an operational matter. We'd like to replace 15 to 20 percent of the current U.S. attorneys, the underperforming ones." No mention of political loyalty; it's performance. So I think ...

QUESTION: But the next line says ...

QUESTION: Excuse me ...

SNOW: Then it says, "This is a rough guess. We might want to consider doing performance evaluations after Judge comes on board. The vast majority of U.S. attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, loyal Bushies," et cetera. I mean, I don't see in there that there is political loyalty tests. It's a characterization.

QUESTION: Oh, come on. That seems to define a good job as political loyalty ... the loyal Bushies.

SNOW: No, I don't think so. It talked about underperforming, and then it talks about the history of these things. If you take a look ... what you're trying to do is cherry-pick your phrase. But the fact is ...

QUESTION: You've never done that, have you?

SNOW: What I'm trying to do is accentuate the key phrases.

QUESTION: And we appreciate it.

SNOW: But I don't want to start serving as the witness, the “what Kyle Sampson intended to mean” with that memo. So I'm -afraid ... I'm going to let him ... but the President's view is, you need U.S. attorneys ... the job of a U.S. attorney is to uphold law. And you have people who are going to be effective in that and who are going to serve the public interest.

Snow refused to say whether certain White House officials will testify to Congress, saying that's up to White House Counsel Fred Fielding.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Senate Committee Requests Testimony of Rove Aide

Paul Kiel | March 16, 2007, 1:32PM

The list of White House officials that Congress wants to hear from continues to lengthen.

Last night, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Karl Rove's deputy Scott Jennings, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Political Affairs, asking him to appear before the committee "for interviews, depositions, or hearing testimony." The emails show Jennings right in the thick of the efforts to get Rove's former aide Scott Jennings installed as the U.S. attorney -- and to avoid the unnecessary hurdle of senate confirmation. The committee's already asked to hear from Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and deputy White House counsel William Kelley.

The committee also sent a letter asking to hear from Justice Department official William Moschella. Moschella, McClatchy reported earlier this week, claims responsibility for having pushed a measure slipped into the Patriot Act Reauthorization in late 2005 that made it possible for the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite terms without Senate confirmation. Moschella claims that he advocated the change "without the knowledge or coordination of his
superiors at the Justice Department or anyone at the White House."

Yesterday, the Senate committee authorized issuing subpoenas for Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff who quit this week, Michael Elston, top aide to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, Associate Attorney General Bill Mercer, Monica Goodling, Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, and Mike Battle, the departing director of the office that oversees all 93 U.S. attorneys.

U.S. Attorneys

LAT: Ousted U.S.A. Wonders Whether GOPer Probe Led to Firing

Paul Kiel | March 16, 2007, 11:08AM

From The Los Angeles Times:

Still uncertain exactly why he was fired, former U.S. Atty. H.E. "Bud" Cummins III wonders whether it had something to do with the probe he opened into alleged corruption by Republican officials in Missouri amid a Senate race there that was promising to be a nail-biter.

Cummins, a federal prosecutor in Arkansas, was removed from his job along with seven other U.S. attorneys last year.

In January 2006, he had begun looking into allegations that Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt had rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts to run the state's driver's license offices. Cummins handled the case because U.S. attorneys in Missouri had recused themselves over potential conflicts of interest.

But in June, Cummins said, he was told by the Justice Department that he would be fired at year's end to make room for Timothy Griffin — an operative tied to White House political guru Karl Rove.

In an interview Thursday, Cummins expressed disgust that the Bush administration may have fired him and the others for political reasons. "You have to firewall politics out of the Department of Justice. Because once it gets in, people question every decision you make. Now I keep asking myself: 'What about the Blunt deal?' "

A couple points to be made about this, one that adds credence to Cummins' charge, and one that doesn't.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Behold! TPM's U.S. Attorney Scandal Timeline

Paul Kiel | March 16, 2007, 10:22AM

You can see it right here.

As with all our timelines, it's a work in progress, so suggestions and corrections are welcome -- send an email to talk(at)talkingpointsmemo.com with the subject line "timeline."

I've put a permanent link to the timeline on the right sidebar for those who want to refer back to it in the future.

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 16, 2007, 9:24AM

Now that the morning papers have taken a shot interpreting the email released late yesterday, let's take another look.

Shortly after the email's release, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that the email does not show that the idea of firing certain or all U.S. attorneys began with Karl Rove. And, admittedly, the email backs her up. Of course, it certainly doesn't show that Rove didn't come up with the scheme, either.

The January 9th, 2005 email (subject line: "Re: Question from Karl Rove"), in which Justice Department official Kyle Sampson brainstorms on what to do about the U.S. attorneys, begins with "Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago." He then goes on to say, “As an operational matter we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. attorneys — underperforming ones," the "we" there being Sampson and Alberto Gonzales (who is called "Judge" because he was once a a Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas).

That puts Sampson and Gonzales discussing the idea way back in December, 2004. (A DoJ spokesperson said in a statement yesterday that Gonzales "has no recollection" of that discussion.)

Perino stuck to the line yesterday that the whole idea of firings all 93 U.S. attorneys started with White House counsel Harriet Miers. Perino says that "Karl Rove has a recollection of hearing it from Harriet, and thinking it was a bad idea. There is nothing in this e-mail that changes that.... [It] does not contradict nor is it inconsistent with what we have said."

Now, Miers didn't even take over as White House counsel until early February, 2005. But Perino said that in the months between her being named to the spot (November, 2004) and actually starting work, "she would have been thinking about transition issues." But Perino admits that it's "not clear when the idea first originates, but the bottom line is, the idea is never pursued."

But let's step back here for a moment.

Whether the idea of firing all the sitting U.S. attorneys was originally Miers' or Rove's brainchild or not is mostly a red herring at this point. Whatever the original seed of the purge, it clearly became an opportunity for the administration to push out federal prosecutors who were not "loyal Bushies." That's the idea that really matters. And Rove was involved in that effort from its first steps.

U.S. Attorneys

Email: Most USAs Are "Loyal Bushies"

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 6:53PM

As reported earlier on ABC News, here is the email that shows that Karl Rove was involved in the whole U.S. attorney purge scheme from the beginning of 2005.* It was released this evening by the Justice Department.

In the email, which has the subject line "Re: Question from Karl Rove," Kyle Sampson, who was then at the Justice Department, discusses with then-deputy White House Counsel David Leitch the idea of replacing "15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys," because "80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc."

"[I]f Karl thinks there would be policitical will to do it, then so do I," Sampson concludes.

Sampson's email was in response to Leitch's relaying of Rove's query about how the administration would handle the U.S. Attorneys. As paraphrased by Colin Newman, a legal aide in the White House counsel's office, Rove asked "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."

Update: The Justice Department has also released a statement from DoJ spokesperson Tasia Scolinos:

"The Attorney General has no recollection of any plan or discussion to replace U.S. Attorneys while he was still White House Counsel. The period of time referred to in the email was during the weeks he was preparing for his confirmation hearing, January 6th, 2005, and his focus was on that. Of course, discussions of changes in Presidential appointees would have been appropriate and normal White House exchanges in the days and months after the election as the White House was considering different personnel changes Administration wide."

Update: Of course, the email ought to be considered in light of the fact that it was written just before Gonzales' confirmation hearings to be the attorney general, and that Sampson frames the solution in terms of how Gonzales would deal with it. Sampson writes that "we might want to consider doing performance evaluations after Judge comes on board," referring to Gonzales becoming the AG.

Update: To answer those reader queries about whether Gonzales is the "Judge" Sampson refers to in the email -- Gonzales was a Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas before moving to D.C. to become Bush's White House counsel.

*Update: This first sentence originally read, "...here is the email that shows that the whole U.S. attorney purge scheme originated with Karl Rove," which overstated what the email shows.

Surveillance

Conyers Presses Gonzales on Blocking Probe

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 5:28PM

When it rains...

Following up on National Journal's story earlier today, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) sent a letter (pdf) to Alberto Gonzales asking him to respond to the story's allegation:

"It would be an extraordinary abuse of authority if you advised the President on this matter after learning that your own conduct was to be investigated... The decision by the President to shut down the OPR investigation by denying security clearances to key Department personnel was itself extremely unusual, controversial and, in our view, improper. But the issue of your role in advising the President on this question raises what may be even more serious concerns."

U.S. Attorneys

ABC: Rove Suggested Firing All U.S. Attorneys

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 5:08PM

From ABC:

New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House....

White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Tuesday that Miers had suggesting firing all 93 and that it was "her idea only." Snow said Miers' idea was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice.

However, Miers was Bush's staff secretary at that time in January 2005. She did not become White House counsel for another month, after Gonzales left to become attorney general.

The latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove both were involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand.

U.S. Attorneys

Rove: We Left Prosecutors Working on "Important Investigations"

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 4:40PM

Karl Rove broached the topic of U.S. Attorneys again today. And, as before, it was a battery of flat-out lies, half truths and distortions. Long after Alberto Gonzales backed off his line that the firings are an "overblown personnel matter," Rove's still flogging the same line that people are just "playing politics" with this.

But I want to focus in on one statement in particular. Depending on how you read it, it's either flagrantly tone deaf or a middle finger to those chasing this story:

When we came in in 2001, we reviewed all 93 U.S. Attorneys and over the course of time, replaced virtually all of them with appointees by the president… not all: several appointees were involved in high profile cases, important investigations, and as a result, even though they were appointees of the previous administration, we left them in office for, in some instances, years.

San Diego's Carol Lam was, of course, in the middle of one of the highest profile, important investigations that a United States attorney has undertaken in recent memory when she was fired last December. The suspicion around her firing is what has driven the scandal from the beginning.

But just to show that Lam isn't far from Rove's mind, he goes on to repeat his lie that Lam was ordered to make immigration cases a priority in her office and refused.

U.S. Attorneys

Ousted U.S.A.: We Need A Special Prosecutor

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 4:05PM

The former U.S. Attorney for Seattle John McKay, speaking on Seattle's KUOW earlier today, called for an investigation of the Justice Department's handling of the firings.

McKay said that at very least, there should be an investigation by the DoJ's Inspector General, but if that was opposed, a special prosecutor should be appointed:

I think that means the Inspector General of the Justice Department conducting an investigation, separate from the management of the department because it appears that they were involved at the highest level – including the Attorney General. The Inspector General should report, and if that isn’t done appropriately, there should be a special prosecutor.

McKay said that he wasn't looking to get his job back, but that he thought it was "important for the American public in restoring their confidence in the Justice Department to disavow what now looks like a political process, absolutely unacceptable political process."

U.S. Attorneys

Snow: "How Would You Define 'Political Decision-Making'?

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 3:23PM

Tony Snow fielded more questions on the U.S. Attorney firings during the White House press briefing this afternoon.

He seemed to get caught on one question in particular:

Q The President said, "I've heard those allegations about political decision-making; it's just not true." How can he say that when he hasn't seen all the emails, emails continue to come out, and of those that have already come out, some of them clearly seem to show that at some level, at least, there was political decision-making?

MR. SNOW: I'm not -- how would you define "political decision-making"?

Q Well, decision-making that involves politics.

Q How would you define it, Tony?

MR. SNOW: Well, it's a loaded term. I mean, I think what the President -- what the President is saying is that there is no -- that in evaluating U.S. attorneys, this is based on performance. And the important thing to do -- and furthermore, the Department of Justice made recommendations that the President has accepted. Also keep in mind, the President has the authority to remove people and put other folks in the job. That is at his discretion. That's presidential power.

Q But is he saying that he was so in the loop, then, that he definitely knew there was nothing political, or was he, in fact, removed, as you indicated this morning?

MR. SNOW: No, I think -- again, what the President has -- the Department of Justice has made recommendations, they've been approved. And it's pretty clear that these things are based on performance and not on sort of attempts to do political retaliation, if you will.

Yeah, "pretty clear."

Update: There was also this:

Q Do you think the White House made any mistakes in this whole matter of the discussions over the firings? And particular, I'm wondering if Attorney General Gonzales was making statements to members of Congress, beginning in January, that later proved to be not exactly in line with the facts, weren't people in the White House aware of that?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into extensive sort of fact witnessing....

U.S. Attorneys

U.S. Attorney Bill Coming up Tuesday

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 3:12PM

From The Hill:

The full Senate will vote next Tuesday on whether to reverse its actions from last year and bring interim U.S. attorney appointments back to the federal courts, according to a deal announced Thursday morning by party leaders.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has said that he won't object to bringing up the bill, since he'll have the opportunity to offer an amendment.

U.S. Attorneys

CREW: White House Breaking Records Law?

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 2:24PM

A number of readers have pointed out that Karl Rove's deputy at the White House, Scott Jennings, used an outside domain, gwb43.com, for his emails. The domain, it turns out, is owned by the Republican National Committee.

Now Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has sent a letter to House government reform committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) requesting an investigation of whether the White House has been violating the Presidential Records Act -- in an attempt to keep certain correspondence away from prying eyes.

Jennings use of the RNC's email "raises serious questions about whether the White House was trying to deliberately evade its responsibilities under the PRA, which directs the president to take all necessary steps to maintain presidential records to provide a full accounting of all activities during his tenure," says CREW.

And there's evidence that Jennings' use of an outside domain was a pattern in Rove's office. CREW points out that Karl Rove's former assistant Susan Ralston also frequently used outside domains to communicate to her old boss, Jack Abramoff.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that House Democrats are also planning on investigating the White House's use of outside domains for correspondence. Namely:

Democratic congressional aides said they will investigate whether using the private address for government business violated laws against using taxpayer resources for political work or signaled that White House officials considered the firing of U.S. attorneys to be primarily a political issue. Jennings did not return a call to his office seeking a comment.

An RNC spokeswoman told the Post that "As a matter of course, the RNC provides server space and equipment to certain White House personnel in order to assist them with their political efforts."

But the question here is whether there is any line between "political efforts" and official duties in the Bush White House.

U.S. Attorneys

Snow: "There Are A Lot of Things Going on" at The DoJ

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 12:22PM

It was a rather brutal press gaggle for Tony Snow this morning. Some highlights:

Q: The attorney general said mistakes were made in the Patriot Act, mistakes were made in the prosecutors, so how many mistakes...

SNOW: There are a lot of things going on at the Department of Justice, and the president has confidence in his attorney general....

Q: Anybody calling Senator Sununu? What's your direct response to him?

SNOW: We're disappointed.

My personal highlight is Snow dismissing the false testimony given to Congress by Justice Department officials as "testimony on the Hill where people weren't fully briefed on email trails and so on.."

Much more below the fold....

Update: Another highlight:

Q: Tony, in the email traffic, loyalty came down as a criteria for employment as a US attorney. Does the president believe that loyalty to him and his administration is an important criteria?

SNOW: No, the criteria -- and I don't want to be a fact witness. I think you have to go back and take a look at the emails. I'm not sure that the characterization is accurate, but you're going to have to ask the person who wrote the email --- and that would be Kyle Sampson -- what he meant by it.

Read more »

Surveillance

Waas: Gonzales, A Likely Target, Helped Block Wiretapping Probe

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 11:48AM

Murray Waas, over at National Journal, adds to Alberto Gonzales' woes. It's another one of those complicated simple stories, and the gist is this: Gonzales knew that an internal Justice Department investigation would likely end up focusing on him, nevertheless, he went to Bush and got him to shut it down.

From National Journal:

Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.

Bush personally intervened to sideline the Justice Department probe in April 2006 by taking the unusual step of denying investigators the security clearances necessary for their work.

It is unclear whether the president knew at the time of his decision that the Justice inquiry -- to be conducted by the department's internal ethics watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility -- would almost certainly examine the conduct of his attorney general....

Current and former Justice Department officials, as well as experts in legal ethics, question the propriety of Gonzales's continuing to advise Bush about the investigation after learning that it might examine his own actions. The attorney general, they say, was remiss if he did not disclose that information to the president. But if Gonzales did inform Bush about the possibility and the president responded by stymieing the probe, that would raise even more-serious questions as to whether Bush acted to protect Gonzales, they said.

Update: Here's some background on how baseless and brazen Bush's removal of security clearances for the investigators was.

U.S. Attorneys

Senate Panel OKs Subpoenas for DoJ Officials, Waits on White House

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 11:13AM

From the AP:

The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday cleared the way for subpoenas compelling five Justice Department officials and six of the federal prosecutors they fired to tell the story of a purge of U.S. attorneys that has prompted demands for the ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The voice vote to authorize the panel to issue subpoenas amounts to insurance against the possibility that Gonzales could retract his permission to let the aides testify voluntarily, or impose strict conditions.

The committee also postponed for a week a vote on whether to authorize subpoenas for
President Bush's top aides who were involved in the eight firings, including political adviser Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and deputy White House Counsel William K. Kelley.

Update: Why did the committee hold off on subpoenas to the White House? Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says "It is regrettable that members of the minority blocked subpoenas for some of the White House players. They should be joining in our efforts to get to the bottom of this.”

Update: And here's Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT):

“We have asked for Administration officials and now former officials to cooperate with the Committee, and I hope that they will. If they cooperate, we will not need to issue subpoenas. But we did not start to get the truth from the Department or the Administration until we put subpoena authorizations on the Committee’s agenda... Through the Committee’s oversight work so far, we now know some of the answers to many questions we have been asking, and the answers are not good. ”

U.S. Attorneys

Purged Prosecutor: No "Paper Trail" for Administration Alibi

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 9:07AM

From McClatchy this morning:

In an interview Wednesday, [former U.S. Attorney for Little Rock, Arkansas Bud] Cummins questioned whether the Justice Department seriously evaluated any of the other U.S. attorneys who they insisted were removed for performance reasons.

"If they had serious questions, where are the memos proving there was a real performance review?" he asked. "They released all of these embarrassing memos, don't you think they would have released the paper trail?"

Cummins also said that e-mails released by the White House earlier this week demonstrated that performance wasn't the issue. "It's clear that, in at least some instances, politics played a significant part," he said.

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 8:58AM

So what's next? Culled from the papers this morning, here's a roundup of where the attorney purge scandal is headed these next couple of days.

Alberto Gonzales, in an increasingly desperate attempt to keep his job, has said that he'll meet with members of Congress sometime this week to explain himself. It's unclear when or where that will be.

Meanwhile, both the House and Senate judiciary committees are pressing forward with their investigations.

A small group of lawmakers from both the House and Senate met with White House counsel Fred Fielding yesterday concerning their request for documents and to interview White House officials, including Karl Rove. Fielding, apparently, told them he'll get back to them Friday after speaking with the president. At issue, of course, is whether the White House will assert executive privilege. That would mean war.

According to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who was at the meeting, Fielding "said that he wanted to make this work because he had a reputation, his own reputation, to uphold.”

But though the committees have gone out of their way to be amicable, that doesn't mean they'll be sitting on their hands waiting for an answer from the White House.

As Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) put it: “Frankly, I don’t care whether Fielding says he’s going to allow people or not. We’ll subpoena the people we want.... If they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation I suspect they don’t want to have.”

And so this morning, the Senate committee will vote on whether to issue subpoenas to Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and William Kelley, a former top aide to Miers.

We'll know tomorrow, it seems, whether they'll have to use them.

U.S. Attorneys

GOPer: "Congress Was Lied To"

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 8:33AM

I don't think this counts as an outright call for resignation -- put it in the growing number of Republican "I'm on my last nerve" statements -- but at least it's straightforward:

U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa said Wednesday he was "outraged" that executive branch officials recently gave a congressional hearing misleading and inaccurate testimony based on information that both the Department of Justice and the White House knew to be untrue.

"We can soft-pedal it a lot of ways, but Congress was lied to," Issa, R-Vista, said in a Wednesday phone interview from his Washington office....

He said that if Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had any role in false information being given to Congress, "he should not be able to continue in his job."

Muckraker Goes Radio

Paul Kiel | March 14, 2007, 6:33PM

I'll be on Open Source with Christopher Lydon at 7 EST tonight discussing the U.S. attorney purge story.

U.S. Attorneys

The Justice Department Needs to Learn to Share

Paul Kiel | March 14, 2007, 6:24PM

Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson was supposedly fired because he's not a good communicator -- namely, he failed to tell others at the Justice Department that he had been consulting the White House for nearly two years about the firing of U.S. attorneys before it happened. Because Sampson didn't spread the word, the story goes, Justice Department officials gave false information to Congress. But it's apparent that Sampson wasn't the only one with knowledge of his contacts with the White House.

As Gonzales put it yesterday, "the mistake that occurred here was that information that [Sampson] had was not shared with individuals within the department who was [sic] then going to be providing testimony and information to the Congress."

Setting aside for the moment the implication that Sampson lied to the officials who then gave false information to Congress, let's look at one of those instances of false information.

In late February, Richard Hertling, the acting Assistant Attorney General, wrote a letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in which he claimed that the "Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint [Karl Rove's former aide Timothy] Griffin."

Sampson, meanwhile, wrote in an email in December that getting Tim Griffin appointed was "important to Harriet, Karl, etc." And emails from last summer show that Rove's deputy was intimately involved in getting Griffin installed as the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.

So maybe Hertling didn't ask Sampson (the man at the department supposedly in charge of the purge) or Sampson lied to him.

But there's somebody else who knew: Monica Goodling, the Justice Department's liaison to the White House.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Schumer's Five Questions

Paul Kiel | March 14, 2007, 4:30PM

I can think of about a hundred more, but it's a good start.

Today, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to President Bush, posing five questions about the administration's mass firings of federal prosecutors:

1. In an email to the White House, Mr. Sampson refers to a “problem” with Carol Lam. What was this “problem” and was Lam’s firing motivated by her investigation into former Congressmen Randy Cunningham and Representative Jerry Lewis?

a. Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, contacted William Kelley, Deputy Counsel to the President, on replacing Carol Lam, stating, “[t]he 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.”

b. Mr. Sampson’s email was sent the same day that the Los Angeles Times had broken the news that Ms. Lam’s investigation of former Congressman Randy Cunningham (R-CA) had expanded to include Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA).

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Depends on What You Mean by "Weak"

Paul Kiel | March 14, 2007, 4:04PM

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey has been a kind of side character in the purge scandal. Comey, who left the Justice Department in 2005, may best be known as the guy who appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame affair.

It seems pretty apparent that if he were still in charge, things would have been different.

U.S. News reports that Comey, when he was still with the department (he left in August of 2005), produced his own list of "weak U.S. attorneys" who, in his opinion, were underperforming.

Only, it was, well, different:

...a former Justice official says that Comey's list bore little resemblance to the list of those fired last year. The only prosecutor on the fired list who also was on Comey's list was Kevin Ryan, in San Francisco, who, the Washington Post reported Tuesday, had "widespread management and morale problems in his office."

As we pointed out before, Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson had Ryan on his list as a "strong" U.S. attorney. In other words, not only was he not to be fired, he was to be commended.

What accounts for the discrepancy? Maybe it had something to do wtih the criteria. A "strong" U.S. attorney to Sampson, remember, was one who had "exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General."

Comey also had a particularly strong difference of opinion on New Mexico's David Iglesias, whom the Justice Department insists was fired for "performance related" concerns. He told The Washington Post last month that Iglesias "was one of our finest and someone I had a lot of confidence in as deputy attorney general."

Update: And it seems especially worth pointing out that San Diego's Carol Lam didn't make Comey's list at all.

U.S. Attorneys

Bush on the Purge: "I'm Frankly Not Happy"

Paul Kiel | March 14, 2007, 1:42PM

Bush commented this afternoon on his administration's mass firing of federal prosecutors:

Update: This clip only comprises one half of Bush's remarks today -- we'll have the rest up shortly.

Update: Here it is:

Update: Transcript below.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Lam Was on DoJ Hit List before Cunningham Case

Paul Kiel | March 14, 2007, 12:20PM

In March of 2005, Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff sent White House counsel Harriet Miers a list rating U.S. attorneys.

Certain prosecutors were rated “strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General," others had not "distinguished themselves either positively or negatively, and others Sampson “recommend[ed] removing" -- those were “weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives.”

Carol Lam was one of the prosecutors Sampson recommended removing.

This was, of course, a full three months before the Duke Cunningham scandal came to light. The San Diego Union-Tribune broke the story on June 12, 2005.* So does that mean that Lam really was removed for other reasons?

Well, Sampson also wrote this list a number of months before Republicans started raising complaints about Lam's handling of border cases. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who led the charge against Lam, began publicly raising concerns in the summer of 2005.*

And while the list makes clear that Lam, one way or another, got on Sampson's hit list, it's very unclear whether that was because of some deficiency in performance.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Senate Committee Requests White House Interviews

Paul Kiel | March 14, 2007, 11:54AM

The Senate Judiciary Committee sent five letters late yesterday asking White House Counsel Harriet Miers, her deputy White House counsel William Kelley and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to cooperate with the committee’s investigation into the mass firings of US attorneys.

"We would like to work out a process for you to make yourself available to the Committee for interviews, depositions, or hearing testimony, on a voluntary basis, and to produce documents in your possession, control, or custody related to our investigation," the letters, signed by Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA), read. "We fully expect that we will be able to devise a convenient arrangement."

In a White House briefing yesterday, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said, "I find it highly unlikely that a member of the White House staff would testify publicly to these matters, but that doesn't mean we won't find other ways to try to share that information."

The House Judiciary Committee has also requested to speak with Kelley, Rove, and Miers.

The committee also sent letters to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and White House Counsel Fred Fielding requesting documents relating to the investigation.

U.S. Attorneys

Mike Allen on Message: Pick and Stick

Paul Kiel | March 14, 2007, 10:57AM

I knew there was a moral to this story.

Here's the Politico's Mike Allen on MSNBC last night discussing the Justice Department's various (many false) explanations for why the administration fired a group of federal prosecutors.

"The problem is," Allen said, "you have to pick something you can say that you can stick to."

I think that's his way of saying that you should tell the truth?

U.S. Attorneys

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 14, 2007, 8:53AM

Yesterday, White House counselor Dan Bartlett got out in front of the cameras to say that President Bush had "all the confidence in the world" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

But, as The New York Times reports, there are murmur in high places:

[Gonzales'] appearance underscored what two Republicans close to the Bush administration described as a growing rift between the White House and the attorney general....

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.

“I really think there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,” one of the Republicans said....

....inside the White House, aides to the president, including Mr. Rove and Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, were said to be increasingly concerned that the controversy could damage Mr. Bush.

“They’re taking it seriously,” said the other of the two Republicans who spoke about the White House’s relationship with Mr. Gonzales. “I think Rove and Bolten believe there is the potential for erosion of the president’s credibility on this issue.”

As the Times and other papers note, no Republicans have yet called for Gonzales' resignation, although a number of high-profile figures, like Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), who heads up the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have said that they're on their last nerve.

U.S. Attorneys

Rove Deputy Worked to Get Former Aide Spot

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 5:15PM

Emails in August of 2006 show that Karl Rove's deputy was intimately involved in getting Tim Griffin, who himself used to be an aide to Rove, installed as the federal prosecutor in eastern Arkansas.

An email from Scott Jennings, Rove's deputy as the Deputy Political Director at the White House, shows that Jennings was in close contact with Grfffin, even working out the logistics of getting Griffin appointed. The email also shows that then-U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins cooperated in ushering Griffin in.

"Tim said he got a call from Bud offering this idea," Jennings wrote to Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson in late August, "that Tim come on board as a special [assistant U.S. attorney] while Bud finalizes his private sector plans. That would alleviate pressure/implication that Tim forced Bud out. Any thoughts on that?"

"I think it's a great idea," Sampson responded.

The Justice Department made Griffin a special assistant USA in Arkansas the next month. Finally, in December, Griffin was made the U.S. attorney.

The Justice Department told Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) last month that Rove had "no role" in Griffin's appointment.

U.S. Attorneys

Ensign: Still Angry

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 4:18PM

In a press conference this afternoon, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) continued to express exasperation at the Justice Department's firing of his nominee, U.S. Attorney for Nevada, Daniel Bogden.

He said that the attorney general "completely mishandled" the replacement of the prosecutors. But should he resign? Well...

QUESTION: Should the attorney general step down?

ENSIGN: Mistakes were made and changes need to be made in processes. Those changes are being made. And I believe that if we can come out of this with a better system that America will be better off for that.

And so the attorney general is taking steps. They have admitted the mistake to me that they made as far as the process was concerned. And as long as they are taking those steps and as long as folks follow through with what they said, I think that I will be satisfied.

QUESTION: It sounds as if you believe that the deputy attorney general (OFF-MIKE) in January either accidentally or intentionally mislead.

ENSIGN: The deputy attorney general -- the conversations that I had -- he was either ill-informed of the whole process or intentionally misled, one of the two....

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) do you continue to have confidence in Attorney General Gonzales' ability to be in charge over this?

ENSIGN: I want to see how the attorney general leads the Justice Department in this time of crisis. He is presented with a very difficult challenge now.

I want to see if he's wiling to make the changes that are necessary at the Department of Justice because things have been handled poorly up to this point.

U.S. Attorneys

DoJ Claimed "No Role" in Rove Aide's Hiring

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 3:01PM

Now that Alberto Gonzales has admitted that the Justice Department didn't give accurate information to Congress, it's worth reviewing what they said. Here's an example.

In late February, Richard Hertling, the acting Assitant Attorney General, wrote a letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in which he claimed that the "Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint [Karl Rove's former aide Timothy] Griffin."

Unfortunately, for the Justice Department, however, in an email outlining the media strategy for defending Griffin's appointment, Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson wrote that getting Tim Griffin appointed was "important to Harriet, Karl, etc." You can read the email here.

Update: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had a pretty complete rundown of the false statements made by Justice Department officials to Congress and the press. Transcript below...

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Gonzales Staffer Was "Ready Replacement" for Rove

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 2:52PM

Some background on Kyle Sampson, the now former chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales whom you'd never heard of before today.

From Al Kamen's "In The Loop" column on October 31, 2005, when the Valerie Plame scandal was raging:

Waiting in the Wings

Speaking of Karl Rove , there had been much concern last week that he also might have to resign as a result of Fitzgerald's probe. The loss of Karl's familiar presence -- he's the last of the original "Iron Triangle" of Bush's Texas advisers still in the White House -- would have unsettled many younger aides.

Fortunately, there's a ready replacement: D. Kyle Sampson , chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and formerly in the White House counsel's office. Maybe not exactly the same as Karl but . . .

Ed. Note: Thanks to TPM Reader MV.

Update: A little more background on Sampson, who graduated from BYU in 1993 and went on to University of Chicago Law School, from the LA Times this morning:

Sampson, a former counsel to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) on the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked as deputy White House counsel for two years under Gonzales starting in 2001.

He joined the Justice Department in 2003 as a counselor to Ashcroft, and stayed on when Gonzales became attorney general. He became chief of staff in September 2005.

Later Update: As some have pointed out in comments, The New York Times ran a generally flattering profile of Sampson today.

Latest Update: We've just added the pictures to help a TPM Reader make her point: "just try to tell me that they weren't separated at birth."

U.S. Attorneys

Gonzales: I'm "Dismayed"

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 2:44PM

We just watched Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' press conference here. The gist: Gonzales said that he accepts responsibility for the "mistakes" made at the Justice Department... but argued that he is not "aware" of "all decisions" at the Justice Department.

He said that his chief of staff Kyle Sampson, now resigned, headed up the process for replacing the U.S. attorneys, and that Gonzales himself was "not involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on."

He professed to be "dismayed" that Justice Department officials had given false information to Congress, but blamed the problem on information not being "adquately shared within the Justice Department."

But no worry --- he'll get to the bottom of it all. Like any CEO would, he said, he'll make every effort to "assess accountability."

We'll put up a clip from the conference soon.

Update: An earlier version of this post incorrectly read, "was 'involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on.'"

Update: Some video:

Update: And a full transcript is below.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

CREW Calls for Special Prosecutor

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 1:52PM

From CREW:

CREW wants the immediate appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate potential criminal violations related to the recent dismissals of eight U.S. Attorneys. Recent revelations indicate that a top-ranking Department of Justice official knew that statements made by top Department officials were not true. Clearly, the Department of Justice cannot investigate itself and prosecute the misconduct of DOJ officials.

U.S. Attorneys

Gonzales Was Reference for Ousted Prosecutor

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 1:27PM

My, my. Less than a month before a Justice Department official told Congress that U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesisas was fired for performance concerns, the Attorney General's chief of staff told Iglesias that he could use Gonzales as a reference.

On January 10, Iglesias wrote to Kyle Sampson and asked if he could use Gonzales as a reference, since "I'll be resigning in the next month or so and am looking for a job."

Sampson responded later that day: "You can list the AG as a reference -- not a problem. Good luck!"

Read the email exchange here.

U.S. Attorneys

Doc Lists Attorneys "in The Process of Being Pushed Out"

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 1:07PM

See it for yourself, the September 13, 2006 email from Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to Justice Department liaison to White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Fifteen minutes earlier, Sampson had sent the same email to the Justice Department's liaison to the White House, Monica Goodling, asking "Any corrections?" before sending it over.

In the email, Sampson outlines the "USAs We Now Should Consider Pushing Out." They were: Arizona's Paul Charlton, San Diego's Carol Lam, Western Michigan's Margaret Chiara, Nevada's Daniel Bogden, and Seattle's John McKay. All five were eventually fired. Arkansas' Bud Cummins had his own heading, "USA in the Process of Being Pushed Out."

In the summary portion of the email, Sampson lays out his recommendation to use a legal loophole to install replacements without Senate confirmation.

"I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed -- It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready to roll immediately. In addition, I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments.... we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House."

Sampson added, intrigiuingly, that he had "one follow up item I would want to do over the phone."

Justice Department Documents on Purge Now Online

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 12:57PM

The House Judiciary Committee has made the documents available online here (pdf) and here (pdf).

See anything interesting? Let us know. We'll be doing running posts on the documents.

Update: And here are parts 3 and 4 of the documents.

U.S. Attorneys

What Rove Knew

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 12:23PM

One point that needs to be made about the flurry of revelations this morning.

The version of events reported by The Washington Post and New York Times has a rather minimal role for Karl Rove. An "associate" of Rove told the Times that he only "learned in November that the prosecutors were being replaced."

But that doesn't square with the facts. Bud Cummins, the former U.S. Attorney for Eastern Arkansas, was fired in June last year. And in September, Timothy Griffin, Rove's former aide, started work as a special assistant to Cummins.

That clearly was no coincidence.

That same month, Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson put together a short list of candidates to be fired. Cummins, he wrote in the email, was "in the process of being pushed out." At the same time, he advocated using a loophole in the law to install Griffin and the administration's other picks through 2008 without Senate confirmation.

And at whose urging was Griffin put in? In one of the emails to be released today, Sampson wrote that getting Griffin appointed was "important to Harriet, Karl, etc."

So it was "important" to Rove that Griffin be made a U.S. attorney and steps were taken in September to make sure that Griffin was indeed installed... but Rove didn't know anything about it until November?

U.S. Attorneys

Gonzales to Hold Press Conference

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 12:16PM

Just over the transom... as calls for his resignation get louder, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be holding a press conference at the Department of Justice at 2:00 PM today.

U.S. Attorneys

Schumer: Gonzales Staffer "Will Not Become The Next Scooter Libby"

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 12:08PM

This morning, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) held a press conference to express their anger at the recent revelations from the Justice Department and White House.

In it, Schumer said that the resignation of Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson "does not take heat off the attorney general. In fact, it raises the temperature. Kyle Sampson will not become the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy."

We've got the full transcript of the conference below...

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Conyers, Sanchez to Hold Presser at Noon

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 11:37AM

From the Justice Department to Congress to you.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) will be holding a press conference at noon to address the next steps in their US Attorney investigation... and release the Department of Justice documents from today's Times and Post stories. We'll let you know as soon as they're available.

U.S. Attorneys

Dems React to White House Involvment in Purge

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 10:06AM

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will be holding a press conference at 10:45 today to discuss the latest revelations.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), meanwhile, is none too happy:

“The White House and the Attorney General have dodged Congress’s questions and ducked accountability as if they still were dealing with a rubberstamp Congress. They are discovering that those days are gone.

“I am outraged that the Attorney General was less than forthcoming with the Senate while under oath before the Judiciary Committee. It is deeply disturbing that this plan appears to have originated from high-ranking officials at the White House and executed in secret with a complicit Department of Justice.

“This is not how justice is served, nor is it how our system of checks and balances is designed to work. It is an abuse of power committed in secret to steer certain outcomes in our justice system, and then to dust over the tracks. The President of the United States and the Attorney General are responsible for setting the moral standard for this Administration. Apparently this matter does not bother them but it does bother me, and we will summon whoever we need in our hearings to get to the bottom of this.”

U.S. Attorneys

Appointing Former Aide Was "Important to Karl"

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 9:31AM

This deserves its own post:

The e-mails show that Rove was interested in the appointment of a former aide, Tim Griffin, as an Arkansas prosecutor. [Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle] Sampson wrote in one that "getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc."

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 8:14AM

OK, there's a lot to sift through in the two stories out from The Washington Post and New York Times today, but let's just focus on the tick-tock of events outlined in the two stories.

So here's the storyline (and please save your expressions of disbelief until the end):

The idea to replace U.S. attorneys was first floated by White House counsel Harriet Miers in February 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "rejected that idea as impractical and disruptive." And Karl Rove "vaguely recalls telling Miers that he also thought firing all 93 was ill-advised."

So in March 2005, a counselor to Gonzales, Kyle Sampson (who went on to become Gonzales' chief of staff in September 2005) sent an e-mail to Miers that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Here's how the Post describes the breakdown:

Strong performers "exhibited loyalty" to the administration; low performers were "weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc." A third group merited no opinion.

The Post doesn't mention it, but in December 2005, the administration, via Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter's (R-PA) chief counsel, slipped a provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization bill that made it possible to replace U.S. Attorneys permanently without Senate confirmation.

In January 2006, "Sampson sent to the White House the first list of seven candidates for dismissal, including four who were fired at year's end: [Michigan's Margaret] Chiara, [Arkansas' Bud] Cummins, [San Diego's Carol] Lam and [San Francisco's Kevin] Ryan. The list also recommended Griffin and other replacements, most of whom were edited from documents viewed by The Post."

In March, the Patriot reauthorization bill finally passed Congress and was signed into law.

In June, U.S. Attorney for Arkansas' Eastern District Bud Cummins gets a call asking him to resign.

Read more »

Oversight Committee

In Iraq, No Room at The Inn for Auditors

Paul Kiel | March 12, 2007, 4:04PM

How strained are resources in Iraq? So strained that the State Department can't afford for three auditors to make a three month visit.

The State Department recently turned down a request for three congressional auditors to make a three-month stay in Baghdad, saying that having them around for that long would be "a serious challenge to mission resources."

In response, 22 Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), have called on Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to make room. "American taxpayers are currently being asked to spend approximately $3,420 every second and $280 million per day in Iraq," reads a letter to Rice sent today. "It is imperative that GAO be given the access it needs to serve as the eyes and ears of the United States Congress...."

But the burden of having those three auditors around would seem almost insurmountable... or at least that's the impression a State Department official gave in a letter to Harkin last week:

"each of [the auditors] would require lodging, extensive support services, security, computers, and other administrative support, as well as the attention of our staff in Baghdad in responding to their requests and inquiries."

You can read the entire letter here. The State Department turned down the GAO's request for a three-month stay, agreeing only to a two-week visit -- although the official pointed out that even that "will place considerable burden on Embassy staff and resources."

In the letter sent to Sec. Rice today, the Democrats didn't buy that argument, asking instead that the State Department make room for a six-month stay for the auditors.

U.S. Attorneys

Schumer: Let's Hear from Karl

Paul Kiel | March 12, 2007, 1:15PM

In light of recent revelations, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) thinks the Senate Judiciary Committee ought to hear from Karl Rove. And today, he asked the committee to call on Rove to testify.

He explained in a statement:

“The more we learn, the more it seems that people at high levels in the White House have been involved in the U.S. Attorney purge... Recent disclosures reveal that Rove talked to the NM State Party Chair Allen Weh before any public announcement of the firing was made and that Rove talked about Mr. Igleisas to the Attorney General and the White House Counsel. While the White House states not incorrectly that someone in Karl Rove’s position might get complaints about U.S. Attorneys, it is almost unheard of for a U.S. Attorney to be fired shortly after such discussions occur, when that US Attorney had received highly favorable reviews and ratings.”

The House Judiciary Committee has also declared a desire to hear from Rove.

U.S. Attorneys

GOP Sen. to Block Attorney Bill?

Paul Kiel | March 12, 2007, 11:08AM

Last Thursday, the administration abruptly dropped its opposition to a bill that would require Senate confirmation for U.S. attorney replacements. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) "still intends to object," Roll Call reports (sub. req.).

Just how disruptive that objection will be is up to Kyl. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) intends to bring the legislation up for a vote "as quickly as possible," his spokesman tells Roll Call. By the rules of the Senate, which give individual senators considerable power to stymie legislation, Kyl could gum up the works with his objection, or he could simply sound his disapproval and let the bill come up for a vote.

Kyl has already blocked the bill, authored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), once. Republicans blocked it a second time when Feinstein tried to attach it as an amendment to another bill.

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 12, 2007, 8:40AM

Salon's headline, "The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq," pretty much sums it up.

On February 15th at Fort Benning, GA, Salon reports,

Master Sgt. Jenkins and 74 other soldiers with medical conditions from the 3rd Division's 3rd Brigade were summoned to a meeting with the division surgeon and brigade surgeon. These are the men responsible for handling each soldier's "physical profile," an Army document that lists for commanders an injured soldier's physical limitations because of medical problems -- from being unable to fire a weapon to the inability to move and dive in three-to-five-second increments to avoid enemy fire. Jenkins and other soldiers claim that the division and brigade surgeons summarily downgraded soldiers' profiles, without even a medical exam, in order to deploy them to Iraq. It is a claim division officials deny.

Salon interviewed a number of the soldiers who were declared fit enough for deployment, including a soldier whose spine is "separating," one who "corkscrewed" his spine, one who "suffers from degenerative disk disease," and another with chronic sleep apnea.

As a captain at Ft. Benning tells him (the one with the corkscrewed spine): "It is a numbers issue with this whole troop surge... They are just trying to get those numbers."

Of course, this is just one Army base and just one unit. Maybe the perfunctory examination was the inspiration of one commander there. Or maybe not:

Other soldiers slated to leave for Iraq with injuries said they wonder whether the same thing is happening in other units in the Army. "You have to ask where else this might be happening and who is dictating it," one female soldier told me. "How high does it go?"

U.S. Attorneys

Gonzales: "What Else Do You Want Us To Do?"

Paul Kiel | March 11, 2007, 1:51PM

From The Washington Post:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales met privately with top members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday to offer an olive branch, but he did not seem too happy about it.

Gonzales had agreed to let Congress limit his powers and interview Justice Department officials as part of an escalating battle over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. He knew that another scandal on FBI abuses was about to break and that some GOP lawmakers were hinting that he was in over his head.

"What else do you want us to do?" the normally taciturn Gonzales asked in exasperation, according to several officials with knowledge of the meeting.

U.S. Attorneys

Purged Prosecutor: DoJ Offered Me "A Deal"

Paul Kiel | March 11, 2007, 1:37PM

It's easy to get lost among the scandals and subscandals that make up the administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys, but one chief allegation is that the Justice Department did its best to discourage the prosecutors from talking to the media and Congress about the firings.

Bud Cummins, the former U.S.A. for Little Rock, Arkansas, testified before Congress about a call he received from Justice Department official Michael Elston in late February with the following message: if the prosecutors didn't stop talking, the Justice Department would hit back.

Now another prosecutor, Seattle's John McKay, says he got a similar call much earlier, before the firings had even been reported. From Newsweek:

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."

As with his chat with Cummins, Elston doesn't deny that he made the call. But he tells Newsweek, that he "can't imagine" how McKay interpreted the call that way.

Similarly, Elston wrote in a letter earlier this week that he was "shocked and baffled" by Cummins' interpretation of that call. And he tells Newsweek that all he said to Cummins was that "it's really a shame that all this has to come out in the newspaper." Somehow, Cummins interpreted that as a threat.