TPMMuckraker U.S. Attorneys: June 2007
U.S. Attorneys
Conyers, Leahy to WH: Tell Us More
July 9 is the new June 28 in the U.S. attorneys scandal, if House and Senate judiciary committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Pat Leahy (D-VT) have anything to say about it. That is, it's the next phase of the White House-Judiciary Committee showdown.
In a just-released letter (posted in full below) to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Conyers and Leahy signal their intent to hit back against the White House's claim yesterday that its internal discussions about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys are outside congressional scrutiny. The two chairman write that unless Fielding specifies the claim of privilege for each document being withheld by July 9, they'll "consider whether the White House is in contempt of Congress." A contempt vote in committee is the first step, to be followed by a vote in the full House or Senate. Experts say the process has never gotten further. But if the clash between Congress and the White House continued, the next step would be a referral to the District of Columbia’s U.S. attorney to enforce the subpoena by seeking an indictment from a grand jury.
From the letter:
A serious assertion of privilege would include an effort to demonstrate to the Committees which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that may apply.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Indeed, the subpoenas themselves specifically stated that for each document withheld, you should provide a description of the nature, source, subject matter, and date of the document; the name and address of each recipient of an original or copy of the document and the date received; the name and address of each additional person to whom any of the contents of the document were disclosed along with the date and manner of disclosure; and the specific legal basis for the assertion of privilege. Such privilege logs have been provided by the White House in previous Administrations, and this Justice Department has provided similar logs in this very matter, which have been used to help resolve disputes about the production of documents. Yet, you have failed to provide any such information.
Topics: U.S. Attorneys
Must Read
Today's Must Read
So, the White House has claimed executive privilege, and Congress has thrown down the gauntlet. So where are we now?
Enter the legal scholars! If there's one thing they agree on, it's that there's no easy answer.
Marty Lederman over at Balkinization, no fan of the administration, calls Solicitor General Paul Clement's arguments for privilege "serious and substantial" and "consistent with similar arguments in analogous privilege memos in Democratic and Republican Administrations alike." That doesn't mean they're right, but that does mean they must be reckoned with.
Such a reckoning would be a long and murky process. It would start with a congressional vote of contempt against the White House, which would in and of itself take months. "Since 1975," USA Today tells us, "10 senior administration officials have been cited but the disputes were all resolved before getting to court. No president has mounted a court fight to keep his aides from testifying on Capitol Hill."
A long court fight is clearly more in the administration's interest than Congress', a fact that led Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) to argue yesterday that if Congress wants anything from the White House in the short term, they should take what they can get on the president's terms -- and then escalate later if they're unsatisfied. Given Democratic reactions yesterday, that seems unlikely. And as I pointed out yesterday, the White House is unlikely to go along with such a plan.
Yep, time is on President Bush's side. From McClatchy:
Mark J. Rozell, a political science professor at George Mason University, said presidents historically had put up a fuss and exerted executive privilege only to reach some sort of accommodation with Congress....PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)But Rozell said Bush might decide to dig in this time.
With low popularity ratings, time running out on his presidency with no anointed successor and a penchant for secrecy, "It's a nothing-to-lose presidency at this point," said Rozell, the author of "Executive Privilege: The Dilemma of Secrecy and Democratic Accountability."
"Bush lacks the kind of incentives that other presidents had to accommodate," Rozell said.
As for the impact of Bush's action Thursday on the congressional investigation into the Justice Department, Rozell said: "Clearly the president is trying to stall or shut down access to critical information that Congress feels it needs. For now, it slows the investigation and puts the two branches on a collision course constitutionally."
Topics: Must Read, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Specter: Let's Get What We Can Get
So what does Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, have to say about the White House's invocation of executive privilege?
Sen. Specter has supported the Democrats' rejection of the White House's offer -- private testimony by aides with no oath and no transcript -- saying that such interviews should only be conducted with a transcript.
At a press conference today, he still insisted on a transcript, but softened his stance a little, reasoning that a court battle over the White House's claim of executive privilege would drag on for years. And given that "this investigation is lagging very, very badly," he said,
I think we ought to give consideration to bringing in those individuals and finding out what we can under the president's terms. It doesn't preclude us from compulsory process and proceeding with the subpoenas at a later time.
So Specter's plan is to conduct the informal interviews offered by the White House and then get tough if need be. The thing is, the White House's offer was very clear on this point. From White House counsel Fred Fielding's letter to the House and Senate judiciary committees back in March:
Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas.
The White House has made it very clear it's all or nothing with their offer -- on their terms, exclusively on their terms, or not at all. Maybe Specter thinks they'll be able to strike a deal, and given that he speaks relatively frequently with Fielding, maybe he has good reason to think so. But the White House's actions so far don't give good reason for optimism.
An extended excerpt from Specter's remarks today are below.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
White House: Transcripts Would Create "Perjury Trap"
The White House is only willing to permit aides to be interviewed in private, with no oath and no transcript. To which Congress says, OK, except for the lack of a transcript. As Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) argued on the Senate floor earlier this month, they need a transcript in order to hold aides to account for lying. It's a crime to lie to investigators, but without a transcript, it becomes much more difficult to prosecute that crime.
Which, it would seem, is precisely the point. During a backgrounder with reporters today, a "senior administration official" said that the arrangement had been offered in order to "provide information, not to appear to be having testimony without having testimony." False testimony is a crime; whereas false information is, well, lamentable. Transcripts would mean testimony and that would create "a perjury trap" -- I guess in the sense that a liar might get caught.
The official continued soothingly: "misleading Congress is misleading Congress, whether it's under oath or not. And so a transcript may be convenient, but there's no intention to try to avoid telling the truth."
But for some reason, Specter, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and others just won't trust in the White House's good intentions.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Coburn on Exec. Privilege: Dems Repeating GOP Mistakes
While Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) hasn't "expressed a specific opinion yet on this latest development," according to spokesman John Hart, the White House-Senate Judiciary Committee showdown over the U.S. Attorney firings puts him in mind of GOP blunders with the Clinton administration. It would be better for the Democratic majority to focus on government waste than "witch hunts," in Coburn's view. Says Hart:
"Recall that Dr. Coburn is perhaps the only Senator who called for Gonzales' resignation to his face so he can't be dismissed as an administration apologist. He would rather see the Majority engage in waste hunts rather than witch hunts. If Congress spent a fraction of the time it spends on political oversight on real, objective oversight of agencies we could save the taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Also, if the Majority wants to set the standard for openness and transparency they should follow Senator Obama's lead and disclose their special interest pork-barrel requests.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Cannon Fires Back on Executive Privilege
Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), the ranking member on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, says it's a low-down dirty shame that the White House had to exert executive privilege over the U.S. attorneys subpoena. If only the Democrats, promulgating a "myth of wrongdoing," hadn't opted to "shred the Constitution":
“It is unfortunate that the Majority has seen fit to turn down reasonable offers of cooperation in favor of court battles that will do nothing except draw headlines and further distract the Judiciary Committee from work that needs to be done. After close to 10,000 pages of documents, dozens of interviews and testimony under oath, this investigation has not led, as the majority has speculated, to the White House. This investigation has spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours of work to discover politics play a part in political appointments. If the Majority had accommodated the White House in the early part of the year, we could have already interviewed these people and moved forward with the investigation.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Cannon continued, “Instead, the Majority has stonewalled and denied the Committee the ability to interview the White House staff with the intent to promulgate a myth about wrongdoing. The Majority’s stonewalling has led the American people down a path of ‘constitutional crisis’. We take an oath to defend the Constitution, not shred it.”
Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Leahy: WH Not Above the Law
Here's the full statement from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
"This is a further shift by the Bush Administration into Nixonian stonewalling and more evidence of their disdain for our system of checks and balances. This White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred. ""Increasingly, the President and Vice President feel they are above the law --- in America no one is above law."
Update: More from Leahy, who says he'll "take the necessary steps to enforce our subpoenas backed by the full force of law":
More than three months ago, we rejected the White House’s “take it or leave it” offer of off-the-record, backroom interviews as unacceptable. Since that time, despite many attempts to narrow the dispute and begin to obtain the information we need, the White House has not made any effort to work with us on a voluntary basis. Instead, since that time, and again today it has merely restated its initial, unacceptable offer. Today, the White House has ended its charade of empty proposals and revealed its disdain for our system of checks and balances.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
I issued the subpoenas after three months of exhausting every avenue of voluntary cooperation from this White House. Evidence gathered by the investigating Committees in the House and Senate shows that White House officials, including Karl Rove and Sara Taylor, were heavily involved in these firings and in the Justice Department’s response to congressional inquiries about them. Yet, even with a subpoena, the White House has not produced a single document or allowed even one White House official involved in these matters to be interviewed. The White House cannot ... stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred.
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Conyers: This Means War
A statement just out from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI):
"The President's response to our subpoena shows an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government. The executive privilege assertion is unprecedented in its breadth and scope, and even includes documents that the Adminstration previously offered to provide as part of their 'take it or leave it' proposal. This response indicates the reckless disrepect this Administration has for the rule of law. The charges alleged in this investigation are serious - including obstruction of justice and misleading Congress - and the White House should be as committed to this investigation as the Congress. At this point, I see only one choice in moving forward, and that is to enforce the rule of law set forth in these subpoenas."
Update: And this just in from Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), the chairwoman of the subcommittee that's led the House's investigation:
"It's tough to get lectured on the Constitution from the same Administration that said the Vice President is his own branch of government. The fact is that the Bush Administration, which has publicly declared its commitment to getting the truth on this issue, has stonewalled from the beginning. Mr. Fielding should understand two things: that nobody in their right mind would accept a White House offer that would condone perjury, and that saying 'take-it-or-leave-it' for months is not actually negotiation."PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
WH Asserts Executive Privilege Over USA Subpoena
And so the constitutional battle begins. For only the second time in its six-plus years in office, the White House today asserted executive privilege after the House and Senate judiciary committees subpoenaed White House documents about the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys.
Update: You can read the letter from White House counsel Fred Fielding here.
"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that (former counsel Harriet) Miers and (ex-political director Sara) Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.
In his letter, Fielding said Bush had "attempted to chart a course of cooperation" by releasing more than 8,500 pages of documents and sending Gonzales and other senior officials to testify before Congress. The White House also had offered a compromise in which Miers, Taylor, White House political strategist Karl Rove and their deputies would be interviewed by Judiciary Committee aides in closed- door sessions, without transcripts. Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Conyers of Michigan, the chairs of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, have rejected that offer.
On the other hand, Fielding said Bush "was not willing to provide your committees with documents revealing internal White House communications or to accede to your desire for senior advisors to testify at public hearings.
"The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch," Fielding said.
A third claim of executive privilege is probably not far behind. Fielding's move surely foreshadows the other looming battle between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the White House: yesterday's subpoenas for documents about the administration's warrantless surveillance program.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has a business meeting at 10 this morning. Stay tuned for its response to Fielding.
Update: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, says the White House is engaged in "Nixonian stonewalling."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Today's Must Read
No other agency in the government has as much power over the lives of citizens as the Justice Department. That's what has made the U.S. attorney firings scandal so urgent.
And time and time again, the scandal has provided dispiriting glimpses of how the Department under Alberto Gonzales has handled that power. The latest came yesterday via Paul Charlton, the former U.S. attorney for Arizona -- who was among the eight fired last December.
One of the reasons that Charlton was fired, according to Justice Department officials, was "repeated instances of insubordination." There had been "multiple failures to follow [the attorney general's] instruction on death penalties," according to a chart officials prepared to justify the firings.
Yesterday, Charlton testified during a Senate committee hearing on the Department's implementation of the death penalty. Charlton is not anti-death penalty. He only believes, he explains, that "of all of the decisions that a prosecutor will make in his or her career, none will be more important than the whether to seek the death penalty." He takes the decision seriously.
So here's what counts as insubordination in Gonzales' Justice Department.
Last year, Charlton's office convicted Jose Rios Rico, a methamphetamine dealer who was charged with slaying his supplier. They decided against seeking the death penalty according to a simple rule: while the evidence had been sufficient to convince a jury that Rico was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it was not sufficient to be sure beyond all doubt. Rico had been convicted based on the testimony of cooperating witnesses, despite the lack of forensic evidence (there was no body). Charlton explained:
This paucity of forensic evidence, evidence that doesn't forget and cannot lie, means, in my opinion, that Rios Rico should not be a death penalty case. If a government seeks to take another person's life it should do so on only the best of evidence.
It's not that prosecutors didn't know where Rico's body was -- it's in a landfill. But it would cost $500,0000 to $1 million to retrieve the body. When Charlton requested that money, the Department refused.
The attorney general's Death Penalty Committee makes the final recommendations in such cases, and so Charlton and his assistant U.S. attorneys sought to convince the committee that a life sentence was more appropriate for Rico. The committee decided against them. Instead, Charlton received a letter from the attorney general "authorizing" (read: ordering) him to seek the death penalty. Under John Ashcroft, Charlton says, he would have received notification of the disagreement before receiving such an "authorization."
The pattern was to continue. Charlton sought a reconsideration of the committee's decision. And here things went downhill:
My most memorable discussion took place with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. After speaking with McNulty, I received a call from his chief of staff, Mike Elston. Elston indicated that McNulty had spoken to the Attorney General and that McNulty wanted me to be aware of two things. First, that McNulty had spent a significant amount of time on this issue with the Attorney General, perhaps as much as 5 to 10 minutes. Second, McNulty wanted me to know that in presenting my view, he, McNulty, had remained neutral, neither supporting nor opposing my position. I was struck that on an issue as important as whether to execute someone, so little time would be devoted to the topic and that the Deputy Attorney General would maintain a neutral position. Elston reported that the Attorney General remained in favor of seeking the death penalty.
Charlton asked Elston if he could speak directly with the attorney general, a request memorialized in an email, dated August 15, 2006. It's from Elston to Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff:
In the “you won’t believe this category,” Paul Charlton would like a few minutes of the AG’s time. I explained that he had already been given extensive, unusual process and that I did not think that it was a good idea for him to press this, but he insisted on me making the request.Your thoughts?
Sampson's reply was to the point: "Denied."
As in so many other instances, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey provided a striking contrast to the current leadership when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee on this question earlier this year.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Alberto Gonzales, Must Read, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Gonzales Continues PR Push
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales met with federal prosecutors here Wednesday, where he caused an uproar by firing U.S. Attorney John McKay last December.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)He also met with relatives of longtime Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Wales, who was shot to death at his Seattle home in October 2001. The murder remains unsolved, and Gonzales' now-former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, suggested in a congressional interview that the reason McKay was targeted for firing might have been that he was too aggressive in asking for additional resources to investigate the crime.
"Bringing those involved in his killing to justice is of the utmost importance to the (Justice) Department," Gonzales said in a statement issued Wednesday morning. "Together, we will work as long and hard as it takes to solve this crime and prosecute those responsible."
Gonzales has testified that he was not aware of DOJ officials using the Wales case as a reason to fire McKay, whose former office remains recused from the investigation. McKay has suggested that Sampson made up that explanation to disguise what might have been the real reason for McKay's firing: His decision not to bring election fraud charges in the extremely close 2004 governor's election in Washington state, won by Democrat Chris Gregoire after two recounts.
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Cage Match: Did Griffin Try to Disenfranchise African-American Voters in 2004?
For years, Tim Griffin, the former aide to Karl Rove who’s been at the center of the U.S. attorney controversy, has been dogged by allegations that he was a part of a 2004 scheme to block African-Americans in Florida from voting.
As Greg Palast first reported for the BBC, an August, 2004 email sent to a number of Republican National Committee operatives contained a spreadsheet of the names and addresses of more than 1,800 voters in Duval County, Florida, a mostly white county that includes the city of Jacksonville. Palast reported that the addresses were located in mostly black neighborhoods, and his story, followed by others posted this year on his website and the Brad Blog, alleged that the list was compiled in order to challenge African-American voters at the polls. We sought to test that conclusion through our own analysis of the data.
The result? Our comparative analysis of the spreadsheet with Duval County voter rolls shows that most names were of African-Americans. (For more on the analysis, see below.) Such a finding, voting rights experts told me, strengthened allegations that Griffin, working for the Republican National Committee, was involved in an effort to target African-American voters. “It is difficult to explain other than an effort to target Democrats and by extension, minority voters,” Toby Moore, a former political geographer with the Justice Department, said.
Michael McDonald, an Associate Professor at George Mason University and an expert on elections statistics, said that the chance that the list is randomly so different from the population is less than 1 in 10,000. It is illegal to target voters based on their race under the Voting Rights Act. Griffin resigned earlier this month as the U.S. attorney for Little Rock after a six-month stint.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
DoJ Purge Figure Withdraws Nomination
It's Friday afternoon. You know what that means: it's time for a senior Justice Department official to resign.
This time it's Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer, who, not so coincidentally, was due to have a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee this coming Tuesday. Mercer is one of the senior DoJ officials Kyle Sampson claims to have consulted about the firings.
But rather than undergo an unpleasant round of questioning, Mercer has withdrawn his name from consideration and will return to his other job; he's the U.S. Attorney for Montana. Mercer -- much to the chagrin of the chief judge in his district -- has been pulling double duty since 2005. Considering that one of the supposed reasons for U.S. New Mexico David Iglesias' firing was that he was an "absentee landlord," Mercer was sure to have been asked about his own absenteeism.
Mercer follows the resignations of other DoJ purge figures Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Michael Battle, Paul McNulty, and Michael Elston.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
McNulty: "I Testified Truthfully"
Tomorrow at noon, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty will testify before a House Judiciary subcommittee about the U.S. attorney firings.
The last time McNulty testified before Congress in February, he made a number of statements that have been revealed to be false, including that the White House had very little to do with the firings. And former DoJ counsel Monica Goodling went after him with guns blazing when she testified before the House Judiciary Committee last month, saying that McNulty had not been "fully candid" in that testimony, implying that he knew a lot more about White House involvement then he had stated. Why was Goodling so aggressive towards McNulty? In a private conversation with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), McNulty had reportedly fingered Goodling and Kyle Sampson as being responsible for his incomplete testimony.
But in his written statement prepared for tomorrow's testimony, McNulty argues that "at all times, I have sought to provide Congress with the truth." He goes on:
And I also want to be clear that I do not believe, and have never believed, that anyone in the Department of Justice set out to mislead me so that I might provide Congress with inaccurate information about this matter. To the contrary, I believe that the thousands of documents that have been produced demonstrate only that in the weeks before my testimony, many in the Department struggled with the question of how best to provide Congress with accurate information about the removals of the U.S. Attorneys, consistent with our efforts to protect the reputations of the U.S. Attorneys involved.
So it would appear that McNulty will not be returning fire at Goodling tomorrow.
The full statement is posted below.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
House Dems to DoJ Whistleblowers: Send Us Your Tips
Did your supervisor at the Justice Department tell you that he was looking to hire a Republican? Or maybe he altered your performance evaluation in order to punish you for not toeing the line? Or maybe he inexplicably eliminated a large number of job applicants because they're Democrats?
Well, the House Judiciary Committee wants you to know that your complaint is safe with them. The committee has launched an effort to get into contact with Department employees who want to blow the whistle but are afraid they'll pay for it..
"This Web site is designed to receive on a completely confidential basis any information concerning the possible politicization of the United States Department of Justice since 2001," the page, called "Write Congress to Right Justice" and part of the committee's website, reads.
A senior aide to the committee told me that it was launched after the committee got calls from people "who indicated to us fairly strongly that they knew of people currently employed in the Justice Department who had info they wanted to provide us, but they were just scared to do it." If the committee made it clear that such tips would be handled confidentially, the aide was told, "we'd get a lot more information." The most smoke thus far, the aide said, was coming from the Civil Rights Division -- where Bradley Schlozman and Hans von Spakovsky once held sway -- but the committee is looking for tips from throughout the Department.
The site advises potential whistleblowers not to use their Department e-mail addresses to send in their tips -- to avoid "unfortunate retaliatory actions" at which a number of officials have proven adept. Anonymous tips will not be considered, but "similar confidentiality will apply to anyone identifying him or herself and requesting such confidentiality." The information, once verified, "will be included in matters that are investigated by the Committee [such as the U.S. attorney firings] and will be incorporated in the Committee’s reports and in legislative and oversight activities of the Committee."
Note: The TPMmuckraker tip line is, as always, open.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorney Resignation Made on Threat of Immediate Firing
When a Justice Department official asked eight U.S. attorneys for their resignations last December, most of them went quietly (initially at least), agreeing to resign on relatively short notice and with no public fuss. But one U.S. attorney, Carol Lam in San Diego, had contentious private exchanges with Department officials about her end date.
An email released to Congress last week shows just how heated those discussions got. When Lam delayed announcing her date of resignation -- wanting more time to tend to several high profile cases, the expanded Duke Cunningham investigation among them --, Justice Department officials prepared to have the president fire her immediately.
The email was amongst those (pdf) released by the Justice Department to Congress last week. Writing to William Kelley, an attorney in the White House counsel's office, Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff and the orchestrator of the U.S. attorney firings, wrote:
FYI – our USA in SD is refusing to resign (though we’ve given her until 5pm eastern); recommendation that she be removed immediately should be over to you by the end of the day.
The January 16th email was written just as the U.S. attorney firings controversy was beginning to simmer. On January 12th, The San Diego Union-Tribune first reported Lam's firing. The next day, the paper quoted the head of the San Diego FBI office as saying "I guarantee politics is involved” in Lam's firing. And on January 16th, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) made her way to the Senate floor to announce her concern and suspicion about the U.S. attorney firings (which had just become public).
If Lam had not announced her resignation that day, apparently, the Justice Department would have moved to have her fired -- something that can only occur by presidential order. Lam, however, gave in and announced on January 16th that she would be stepping down February 15th.
The announcement followed a number of apparently acrimonious discussions Lam had with Michael Elston, the chief of staff to the deputy attorney general. As Lam detailed in written testimony to Congress, Elston had warned Lam since early January that her requests for more time based on "case-related considerations" was "'not being received positively'" at the Department. He told Lam to “stop thinking in terms of the cases in the office," that she had to depart in "a matter of weeks, not months," and that "these instructions were 'coming from the very highest levels of the government.'"
The email released last week shows just how close the "highest levels of the government" came to firing Lam when she insisted on an "orderly transition" (her words) for pending investigations.
It's clear that the Justice Department was in a hurry to have Lam and the other fired U.S. attorneys step down. What's not clear is why.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Carol Lam, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
LAT: Defendants Seize on Politicization of DoJ
The Los Angeles Times details the growing number of cases where defense lawyers "are citing the furor over the U.S. attorney dismissals as evidence that their cases may have been infected by politics."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Wanted: U.S. Attorneys, Senior DoJ Officials
As McClatchy reported last month, the administration -- for some reason -- is having a difficult time filling U.S. attorney vacancies. And as The Washington Post reports this morning, the string of resignations in the Justice Department leadership just compounds the problem:
The Justice Department is scrambling to find willing replacements for nearly two dozen temporary U.S. attorneys, whose time in office is now limited under a law signed last week by President Bush.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The developments add to growing personnel problems at the Justice Department in the wake of last year's firings of nine U.S. attorneys, which led to a political confrontation with Congress, lowered morale and contributed to an exodus of officials from the upper ranks of the department.
A quarter of all federal prosecutors are now on the job on an interim or acting basis -- reflecting a vacancy rate that is much higher than normal, according to department statistics. Five senior Justice Department officials have also resigned since March, including one who announced his departure Friday.
Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
DoJ Purge Figure Resigns
Nothing like a Friday afternoon resignation to end the week.
A senior Justice Department official who helped carry out the firings of eight U.S. attorneys said Friday he is resigning.Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, is the fifth Justice official to leave after being linked to the dismissals of the prosecutors.
The firings have led to congressional investigations, an internal Justice Department inquiry and calls on Capitol Hill for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Elston's resignation is effective at the end of next week. Reached Friday afternoon, he confirmed his plans to leave but would not say why....
Other aides who have resigned in the wake of the firings include former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson and White House liaison Monica M. Goodling. A fifth official, Mike Battle, who ran the Justice office that oversees the U.S. attorneys, left in March.
Update: Some highlights from Elston's tenure at DoJ:
-- He allegedly called three of the fired U.S. attorneys and made an implicit threat that the Justice Department would detail the reasons for their firings if they didn't stay quiet.
-- He allegedly rejected a large number of applicants to Justice Department positions because they were Democrats.
-- When Carol Lam, the former U.S. attorney for San Diego, asked to stay on the job longer in order to deal with some outstanding prosecutions (the expanding Duke Cunningham case among them), Elston told her not to think about her cases, that she should be gone in "weeks, not months" and said "these instructions were 'coming from the very highest levels of the government.'"
-- He called around to the U.S. attorneys whom he had placed on one of the draft firing lists to apologize when he discovered that his list would be turned over to Congress.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Complaint: Schlozman Aimed to Replace Lawyers with "Good Americans"
During a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Bradley Schlozman, the controversial former senior political appointee in the Civil Rights Division, was battered with questions about his efforts to politicize the division.
A number of those questions from senators centered on Schlozman's efforts to purge the appellate section of the Civil Rights Division -- the small, but important section that handles civil rights cases in the court of appeals. What were they getting at? An anonymous complaint against Schlozman sent to the Justice Department's inspector general in December of 2005 spelled out the allegations. The complaint, obtained by TPMmuckraker, was filed by a former Department lawyer. You can read it here.
"Bradley J. Schlozman is systematically attempting to purge all Civil Rights appellate attorneys hired under Democratic administrations," the lawyer wrote, saying that he appeared to be "targeting minority women lawyers" in the section and was replacing them with "white, invariably Christian men." The lawyer also alleged that "Schlozman told one recently hired attorney that it was his intention to drive these attorneys out of the Appellate Section so that he could replace them with 'good Americans.'"
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Bradley Schlozman, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Griffin: Public Service "Not Worth It"
Your friends in the administration try to set you up as a U.S. attorney for a couple years, even plotting to lie to senators who might make trouble for you, but then it all blows up and goes wrong and you have to step down. Can you blame Tim Griffin for souring on public service?
From the AP:
Former interim U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin tearily announced Thursday that public service is, "not worth it."Griffin was named to replace Bud Cummins after Cummins was fired by the Bush administration along with seven other U.S. Attorneys.
Griffin addressed a lunchtime audience at the Clinton School of Public service Thursday, sometimes crying as he said he had no plans to return to politics.
Via ThinkProgress.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Gonzales under Investigation by Internal DoJ Probe
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is under investigation by his own department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility. From The Washington Post:
The Justice Department is investigating whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales sought to influence the testimony of a departing senior aide during a March meeting in Gonzales's office, according to correspondence released today.In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the two officials who are leading an internal Justice Department investigation of the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys last year said their inquiry includes the Gonzales meeting, which was revealed during testimony last month from former Gonzales aide Monica M. Goodling.
You can read a copy of the letter here.
Here, to refresh your memory, is Goodling's testimony about the meeting last month. Goodling said that in this private discussion with Gonzales, she asked for a transfer out of her current position because of the scandal. Gonzales said he'd have to think about that, but then started telling Goodling what he remembered about the firing process. He then asked her if she had "any reaction" to his memory. "I didn't know that it was maybe appropriate for us to talk about that," she said, adding that it made her "uncomfortable." When Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) asked if she thought the attorney general had been trying to shape her recollection of the firings, she said no, but then did say again that the conversation had made her feel uncomfortable.
The Post reports, "The disclosure could represent a serious legal threat to the embattled attorney general. [Inspector General Glenn] Fine's office is empowered to refer matters for criminal prosecution if warranted."
Update: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) response was to the point:
"The last time an internal investigation at the Department of Justice got too close for comfort the White House shut it down. I hope this investigation will not suffer the same fate as the OPR inquiry into the warrantlesss wiretapping program. This internal investigation is an important step in getting to the truth behind this matter, and they should be allowed to do their jobs without interference from this Administration."PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Specter to White House: Let's Make a Deal
Here's Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Arlen Specter (R-PA) on the floor of the Senate today making an offer to the White House for a compromise:
The standing offer from the White House is that congressional investigators interview White House aides about the U.S. attorney firings behind closed doors, with no oath or no transcript. Democrats have rejected that, and today the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees issued subpoenas for former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Karl Rove's former top aide Sara Taylor.
Specter said that he'd spoken to the current White House counsel Fred Fielding today about the subpoenas for Taylor and Miers. Specter went on to muse about a possible compromise. He'd prefer that there be a public hearing and that the hearing be under oath, but said that's not necessary, given that it's a crime to lie to investigators, even if it's not under oath. But Specter said there needs to be a transcript -- otherwise it would be much more difficult to hold an aide to account for lying.
So if the White House offers to hand over Taylor and Miers for private interviews with a transcript (but no oath), Specter would agree. And given that a court battle between Congress and the White House is likely to drag on for months upon months, you can bet that Democrats would give such a deal serious consideration.
But before any of that happens, the White House has to give ground -- something they haven't done since Congress started knocking on the door in March. Will the subpoenas change that?
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
And So It Begins
The fight between Congress and the White House over testimony from White House aides over the U.S. attorney firings has officially entered its second stage. The first stage, a stalemate punctuated by threats of subpoenas, lasted three months. The second stage is likely to last much longer.
We noted the subpoenas to Karl Rove's former aide Sara Taylor and former White House counsel Harriet Miers earlier today. You can see the subpoena for Miers here.
Also among the subpoenas issued this morning were subpoenas from the House and Senate judiciary committees to the White House for "all documents in the possession, custody or control of the White House" that relate to the U.S. attorney firings. You can see the two letters to White House counsel Fred Fielding from the committee chairmen today below.
As CNN reports, the subpoenas are likely to lead to a long fight:
Two Democratic congressional sources say they decided not to subpoena Rove because they are building their case by talking to and gathering information from lower level witnesses and officials, before they get to the more senior, more important witnesses."We want to build up and get documents to have basis to ask questions of Rove," one of the sources said. "It's the way you do it in any investigation."
Having said that, the source said the reality is that this will end up in a constitutional showdown and they will never get a chance to talk to any of the White House witnesses.
The documents aren't likely to be any easier to obtain. In both of their letters to White House counsel Fred Fielding today (see below), the chairmen excoriate the White House for stonewalling their investigations for three months. Fiedling has not wavered from his initial offer of interviews with Karl Rove and other aides only in private with no oath or transcript, an offer that also included an offer to turn over external emails -- emails between White House staffers and others outside the White House.
Both chairmen remind Fielding of that earlier offer, but Fielding has said before that the White House won't turn over anything unless it is part of a package deal, which would include Congress agreeing to the closed door, no transcript interviews -- something the chairmen refuse to do.
Update: Here's Laura's post from last month on the murky aftermath when a subpoena is contested.
Later Update: From the AP:
Technically, if the showdown between the White House and Congress is not resolved, the matter could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a session in federal court.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Congressional officials knowledgeable about the probe painted a dark picture of what the Democratic-led committees might do if the White House refuses to comply.
One option, these officials said, are votes in committee and on the House and Senate floors on contempt citations against any subjects of the subpoenas who don't comply. Another, according to one aide, is a subpoena for White House Counsel Fred Fielding, compelling him to testify publicly about the Bush administration's reasons if the subpoenas are ignored. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the White House, Miers and Taylor had not yet responded to the subpoenas.
Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Committees Subpoena Former Rove Aide, Miers
The House and Senate judiciary committees will issue subpoenas to former Karl Rove aide Sara Taylor and former White House counsel Harriet Miers this morning, the AP is reporting.
The subpoenas follow fast on Justice Department emails turned over to Congress last night that fattened the already substantial case that the White House was intimately involved in installing Timothy Griffin, a former aide to Karl Rove as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.
The Justice Department, in a letter vetted by the White House, wrote Congress back in February that Karl Rove didn't play "any role" in Griffin's nomination -- a statement the Department has since admitted was false. And how: emails have shown that Rove's aides worked closely with Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson at the Justice Department to get Griffin in the spot, and that Sampson, working with Rove's aides, plotted to keep Griffin in place despite objections from Arkansas' senators, stringing them along with the promise that another nomination would be made if Sens. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) objected. A little-noticed provision in the USA PATRIOT Act enabled the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys for indefinite terms without Senate confirmation.
Sampson testified to congressional investigators that Taylor, formerly Rove's top aide (she resigned last month), was "upset" when Alberto Gonzales finally decided not to follow Sampson's plan in January. From a January 25th email, it appears that Taylor was still committed to Sampson's plan of stringing the senator's along at that late date. Reacting to a draft of a Justice Department letter to Sen. Pryor, Taylor wrote "I'm concerned we imply that we'll pull down Griffin's nomination should Pryor object."
The emails released last night show how worked up Taylor was about Griffin's nomination.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Bud Cummins, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Schlozman: What I Really Meant Was...
In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) last night, Bradley Schlozman wrote to "clarify" his testimony before the committee last night.
Grilled by a number of senators over his decision as U.S. attorney for Kansas City to bring four voter fraud indictments just days before last year's election, Schlozman repeatedly testifed that he'd brought the indictments "at the direction" (he used the phrase ten times) of the director of the Election Crimes Branch in the Public Integrity Section. That raised more than a few eyebrows on the panel since that director, Craig Donsanto, is the man who wrote the DoJ manual discouraging such investigations close to an election.
Schlozman's story had the effect of distancing himself from the controversial decision and pinning it on a Department veteran.
Now Schlozman is changing his story:
As required by Section 9-85.210 of the U.S. Attorney's Manual, at my direction, the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case consulted with the Election Crimes Branch prior to the filing of the indictments. I want to be clear that, while I relied on the consultation with, and suggestions of, the Election Crimes Branch in bringing the indictments when I did, I take full responsibility for the decision to move forward with the prosecutions related to ACORN while I was the interim U.S. Attorney.
In other words, somehow, some way, Schlozman was able to get a green light for the indictments.
Sen. Leahy, reacting to Schlozman's letter, thinks it's more than a "clarification" -- and points out that it's far from the first time a Justice Department official has misled Congress over the past few months:
“It is deeply troubling that after weeks of preparation Mr. Schlozman appears to have misled the Committee and the public about his decision to file an election eve lawsuit in direct conflict with longstanding Justice Department policy.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)I asked him repeatedly about this case at the hearing because of concerns that it was done to use law enforcement power improperly to affect the outcome of the election, which is the reason the Department instituted the policy as a safeguard against such manipulation.
“This Justice Department and this Administration already suffer from a severe credibility crisis, and learning that yet another senior official was less than forthcoming during his testimony before Congress does little to restore any of the lost trust or eroding confidence in their leadership. It is difficult to get to the facts when Administration officials fail to come clean, but the Committee will continue to pursue the truth behind this matter.”
Topics: Bradley Schlozman, U.S. Attorneys
Must Read
Today's Must Read
The morning after Republicans blocked the no-confidence resolution in the Senate, the papers are trying to figure out what, if anything, the resolution's failure means.
The vote itself was apparently unprecedented; never before in the history of the Senate has there been a no-confidence vote for a cabinet official. And even if it had passed, the resolution had no force.
Seven Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the resolution (Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) voted against it, and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), who's under investigation by Gonzales' department, merely voted "present"). And as The New York Times notes, "Republicans who rejected the proposal offered little defense of Mr. Gonzales [with the notable exception of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)], but criticized the resolution as a politically motivated stunt and a waste of the Senate’s time." In other words, voting no to no-confidence did not equal confidence. Any way you cut it, it was not a proud day for Gonzales.
So where do the papers come down on what the failure of an unprecedented symbolic vote with a number of (but not quite enough) Republican defections means?
There are really two separate questions here. The first is whether Gonzales will stay on as attorney general -- he will, but then the vote wouldn't have done anything to change that anyway. The administration has shown itself to be brazenly immune to political pressure on the question of Gonzales' tenure. The second question is whether the vote will affect the health of the investigation into the U.S. attorney firings.
The Los Angeles Times concludes that Democrats have slowed the momentum of their own investigation into the U.S. attorney firings:
There were signs that Democrats were on the verge of taking that investigation to a new level, possibly by issuing subpoenas to the White House for documents and testimony of such figures as political operative Karl Rove.But the no-confidence vote suggests that the Democrats do not have the political might to force the issue.
McClatchy chose an opposite tack, running their story on the vote under the headline, "Majority of Senators Seek `No Confidence' Vote on Gonzales."
The investigation will churn on regardless. Next week, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty will appear before the House Judiciary Committee. The hearing will be an opportunity for McNulty to hit back after former DoJ aide Monica Goodling publicly accused him last month of not being "fully candid" in his February testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The following week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will focus their sights on William Mercer, the high ranking DoJ official who's pulled double duty as the U.S. Attorney for Montana for two years -- and yet had the nerve to tag one of the fired U.S. attorneys, New Mexico's David Iglesias, as an absentee landlord because Iglesias served in the Navy reserve for a month each year.
Not only that, but the Justice Department's Inspector General, in tandem with the Office of Professional Responsibility, continues to conduct its investigation of the firings and politicization at the department. Democrats expect the report, which will be made public when it's completed (probably sometime later this summer), to be bad news for the administration.
In other words, despite the contrary claims of victory and defeat, expect things to move along much as they have.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Alberto Gonzales, Must Read, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Gonzales No-Confidence Vote Fails in Senate
The no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales narrowly failed the necessary 60 votes needed for cloture in the Senate today, with a mere seven Republicans voting in favor of the resolution (see below). The final tally was 53-38, with 1 vote of "present." Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) voted against.
The Republicans voting in favor were:
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Update: A statement out from the Justice Department:
“The Attorney General remains focused on the important issues that the American people expect him to address: securing our country from terrorism, protecting our neighborhoods from gangs and drugs, shielding our children from predators and pedophiles, and protecting the public trust by prosecuting public corruption. With so many pressing issues facing our country such as the threat of terrorism and the danger posed by gangs and violent criminals, we look forward to continuing to work with Congress to identify appropriate solutions to address these issues.”PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Specter on Gonzales Resolution: Oh, All Right
As the vote draws near, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) made it simple this afternoon: Republicans have no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, but they're not going to vote that way, because that would hand a victory to Democrats. For his part, Specter is a reluctant supporter of the resolution, he said -- but don't expect others to follow him.
The vote is scheduled to commence shortly.
From Sen. Specter's remarks:
The thrust of the resolution, if it really seeks his ouster, is going to be a boomerang and is going to be counterproductive. My own sense is that there is no confidence in the attorney general on this side of the aisle, but that the views will not be expressed in this format. Already some who have called for his resignation on the Republican side of the aisle have said they will not vote for this resolution. Others have declined to comment about his capacity but have said that this is not the proper way to proceed, that our form of government does not have a no-confidence vote. Is the principle reason for this resolution to help the Department of Defense (sic) or to embarrass Republicans? I think, clear cut, it is designed to embarrass Republicans. It’s designed to embarrass Republicans if the Senate says they have no confidence in the Attorney General…PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Many on this side of the aisle, most, if not almost all, will vote against cloture here because there are ample reasons to vote against cloture. But as a I look at this matter as which is the more weighty, the more compelling, the more important – candidly stating that I have no confidence in Attorney General Gonzales or rejecting the outright political chicanery which is involved in this resolution offered by the Democrats, I come down on the side that the interests of the country and moving for improvements in the Department of Justice is to make a candid statement that I have no confidence in the Attorney General – which I have said repeatedly, it’s no surprise – and I am going to deal with this resolution on the merits and vote to invoke cloture.
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Schlozman And Iglesias Conflict On Donsanto
Bradley Schlozman pointed to Craig Donsanto in his testimony today when he was asked who gave him the go ahead to press criminal voter fraud charges days before the 2006 midterm election, in an apparent violation of agency policy.
Donsanto, though, is the director of the Election Crimes branch of the Justice Department and author of the manual outlining that policy. It seems a bit surprising that he'd be the one to approve skirting that election policy, when he'd literally written the manual.
Schlozman's account also conflicts with an email former U.S. Attorney from New Mexico, David Iglesias sent to a Department of Justice legislative aide in 2004, just before an election. The email, contained in a DOJ document dump in April, shows Donsanto's stance was on bringing charges just before an election:
There will be another meeting of the EFTF (Election Fraud Task Force) on Wed, Oct. 6. Craig Donsanto has not authorized the FBI to open any case.Note that last line again: " I am not aware of any prosecution which will commence before November 2, 2004. I know Donsanto would not authorize such action because he has stated the same."...
The federal members of the EFTF should be aware of the DoJ policy of not attempting to influence the outcome of an election through investigation or prosecution. I am not aware of any prosecution which will commence before November 2, 2004. I know Donsanto would not authorize such action because he has stated the same.
Perhaps Donsanto changed his mind on these matters between 2004 and 2006. But on its face Iglesias' account of Donsanto's view of this question seems starkly different from the account Schlozman provided today in his testimony.
Here's video of Schlozman testifying:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Bradley Schlozman, David Iglesias, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Todd Graves Tells His Story
In his testimony today, former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri Todd Graves reiterated what he has maintained for the last few weeks in the press: he was pushed out to make room for someone else, not for performance reasons.
That someone, of course, was Bradley Schlozman who testified first today. Schlozman asserted that he knew nothing about Graves' dismissal and never discussed it with anyone.
Graves also recounted how he refused to sign a letter outlining a civil case against the state of Missouri for failing to purge its voter rolls.
One of the most interesting parts of Graves' testimony was his response to former Justice Department White House liaison, Monica Goodling's testimony from two weeks ago. Goodling implied in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee that Graves was under investigation by the Office of the Inspector General and that factored into his dismissal. Graves told the Kansas City Star that, in fact, he brought the case himself to squelch a complaint from a fired employee. Here is video of Graves explaining this to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI):
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Schlozman Not Familiar With ACORN's Leanings
As it turns out, Bradley Schlozman, who brought criminal charges against four ACORN workers on the eve of an election in Missouri does not know if the group has a political bent, or, apparently, what the acronym means.
ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is a grass roots group that runs voter registration drives for poor and minority voters. Not surprisingly, the group has a history of left-leaning work.
Schlozman claims in the video below he is not aware of where ACORN falls on the political spectrum. (Listen closely to hear the press table chuckle.)
When asked who signed off on the ACORN indictments despite Justice Department guidelines that suggest U.S. attorneys should hold off on bringing such cases before an election, Schlozman named Craig Donsanto, the head of the Elections Crimes Division. Donsanto actually authored the manual that outlines the guideline, which Schlozman does not mention. Here is video of Schlozman naming him. The red book Whitehouse holds is the maual:
I wonder when we'll get to meet Donsanto.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Bradley Schlozman, U.S. Attorneys
Oversight Committee
Leahy And Feinstein Question Schlozman On Voter Fraud
Bradley Schlozman has been criticized for bringing voter fraud charges against several ACORN registration organizers just days before a close election in 2006. The decision appears to be in conflict with Department of Justice policy. Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pointed out the apparent conflict to Schlozman today during his testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on the politicization of the agency.
Leahy became openly angered during his questioning of Schlozman when the witness tried to skirt the topic. Schlozman claimed he had clearance from his superiors at the Department of Justice to bring the charges. He also said that he did not think the charges would have an affect on the pending election. Leahy raised his voice and sharpened his tone, not his typical persona.
Here is video of the Leahy-Schlozman tussle:
Feinstein also pressed Schlozman on his decision to bring the criminal indictments right before the election. She was not thrilled with his answer either. Her video is on the way.
Late Update: Here's Feinstein.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Bradley Schlozman, Oversight Committee, U.S. Attorneys
Oversight Committee
Senate Judiciary Hearing Gets Started
We're reporting live from the Senate Judiciary's latest hearing on the politicization of the Department of Justice. The first witness will be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' first appointed U.S. Attorney, Bradley Schlozman, of the Western District of Missouri. The second witness we'll hear from is Todd Graves, the U.S. Attorney that was ousted to make room for Schlozman.
Schlozman is being sworn in. More coverage is on the way. You can also follow along with video here.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Bradley Schlozman, Oversight Committee, U.S. Attorneys
Carol Lam
Lam's Responses Raised Questions, Graves Set To Testify
Several readers have alerted us to a piece in the San Diego Union Tribune about a 13-page document written by former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam. We think the document refers to a 13 page document Lam sent to Congress responding to written questions in May. Her full response is available here. (pdf)
We covered Lam's response last month, which included additional dubious details about her firing. In one passage, Lam explains that she was not immediately told why she was being let go:
Following the call from Michael Battle informing me I was to resign effective January 21, 2007, I called DAG McNulty to inquire why I was being asked to resign. He responded that he wanted some time to think about how to answer that question because he didn’t want to give me an answer “that would lead” me down the wrong route. He added that he knew I had personally taken on a long trial and he had great respect for me. Mr. McNulty never responded to my question.After a follow-up call with Mike Battle a few days later, I requested additional time to ensure and orderly transition in the office, especially regarding pending investigations and several significant cases that were set to begin trial in the next few months.
On January 5, 2007, I received a call from Michael Elston informing me that my request for more time base on case-related considerations was “not being received positively,” and that I should “stop thinking in terms of the cases in the office.” He insisted that I had to depart in a matter of weeks, not months, and that these instructions were “coming from the very highest levels of the government.” In this and subsequent calls, Mike Elston told me that (1) he ‘suspected” and “had a feeling” that the interim U.S. Attorney who would succeed me would not be someone from within my office, but rather would be someone who was a DOJ employee not currently working in my office, (2) there would be “no overlap” between my departure and the start date of the interim U.S. Attorney, and (3) the person picked to serve as interim U.S. Attorney would not have to be vetted by the committee process used in California for the selection of U.S. Attorneys.
Former U.S. Attorney from Missouri, Todd Graves, is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee this afternoon. Graves is the most recent U.S. attorney to say he was asked to resign suddenly. The questionable layer to his case hinges on whether his decision not to force a voter-fraud lawsuit on the state led to his dismissal. It will be interesting to see if there are any similarities in his testimony.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Carol Lam, U.S. Attorneys
Inside TPM
-
Latest
-
Most Popular
All
TPMMuckraker
TPMDC
TPMLiveWire
-
Dems Plot Payroll Tax Cut End Game
-
Why The GOP's Payroll Tax Cut Cave Is An Even Bigger Deal Than You Think
-
Obama's 2013 Budget Gives Up On 'Gitmo North' Proposal
-
Feds Circle Campaign Contribution Case Rife With Allegations Of Embezzling, Murder Threats
-
GOP Drops Demand For Offsetting Payroll Tax Cut
-
How Obama's Budget Throws A Big Punch At The GOP
-
Has Obama Cornered Republicans On Contraception?
-
Tax Avoidance Questions Continue To Haunt Romney
-
Obama To Draw Contrast With GOP In Budget
-
McConnell: GOP Will Fight To Let ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage
TPM Top News
© 2011 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
