Last week United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had no choice but to admit that he and his advisers had given "incorrect" information to Congress regarding the dismissal of eight United States attorneys. The eight attorneys who were fired or asked to resign are John McKay (Washington State), Carol Lam (San Diego, California), David Iglesias (New Mexico), Daniel Bogden (Nevada), H.E. (Bud) Cummins (Arkansas), Margaret Chiara (Michigan), Paul Charlton (Arizona) and Kevin Ryan (San Francisco, California).
Although the Justice Department told Congress that the White House had nothing to do with the dismissal of the attorneys, internal documents purportedly prove otherwise. Additionally, e-mails released by Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who has since resigned) indicate that the Attorney General personally knew more than he initially admitted. One of the Sampson e-mails actually lists the names of the fired attorneys in addition to at least three others as targets for dismissal.
The scandal revolves around the reason for the sudden but pre-meditated firing as well as the fact that Gonzales was not forthcoming to Congress. While some of the attorneys were investigating Republicans prior to being dismissed, others had been called on to pursue possible prosecution of voter fraud in instances where, according to initial investigation, there was none. One of the attorneys, Carol Lam of San Diego, was investigating a major bribery scandal involving Duke Cunningham, Rep. Jerry Lewis and, possibly, Vice President Dick Cheney.
Whether the reason for the firings was to place "preferred" Bush loyalists in those positions, halt ongoing investigations damaging to the Republican party or retaliate against U.S. attorneys who would not prosecute false claims of voter fraud, Alberto Gonzales and his staff apparently misled Congress with regard to the firings. With Kyle Sampson likely to testify against Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty on the verge of resigning and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi calling for Gonzales' resignation, it is not clear why the White House is, more or less, standing behind him.
According to Forbes, the Senate is devoting Monday (3/19) and Tuesday (3/20) to debating and voting on rescinding Gonzales' authority to appoint replacement U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Furthermore, as of this evening the White House is considering replacements for Gonzales and McNulty. Possible replacements include Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, White House anti-terrorism coordinator Frances Townsend, former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, but sources were unsure whether he would want the job. (Olson was recently named to chair Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Justice Advisory Committee.)
Congressional investigators have received additional documents from the Justice Department today which, according to McClatchy news reports are "not expected to help Gonzales keep his job."
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
Could it be that both presidencies crossed a line that all honorable attorney's won't.
I remember that if it weren't for a few Patriotic American attorneys, who stood in defiance of President Nikon, we might have lost the republic 35 years ago.
John Dean comes to mind. But I know there were others that have slipped my memory.
The Rule of Law is often mentioned today and yet that rule seems nothing more than a nuance to those that tread on democracy. To these unpatriotic capitalists profit is the addiction, power the aphrodisiac and compassion is a luxury they can't afford.
This is just simply partisan politics at its worst.
The Democrats in Minnesota recently sent Amy Klobuchar, the former Hennepin County Attorney to the U.S. Senate. For years, the ever partisan Ms. Klobuchar neglected to investigate and prosecute corruption in Minneapolis City Hall, a building that is literally next door to her office.
Instead, two Democrats and one Green council members were sent to jail for bribery and extortion by a FEDERAL prosecutor.
The lesson here is that Democrats should concentrate on cleaning up their own corruption before politicizing what is legal.
This case also reflects the sad fact that the only thing that works for Democrats is fighting with Republicans -- there is a nation out there, there are issues out there, there are positive productive things to do -- besides howl about Republicans.
As the current impasse in the Senate proves this is the way the system works. Those with the cloak "republican" stand in the way of majority opinion on the direction this nation should go, domestically and internationally. Ergo Republicans leave no choice on their fate.
Exactly my point Sam, thank you for emphasizing it.
The fact that Ms. Klobuchar did so well speaks directly to the nasty habit of Democrats applying one set of rules to their own candidates and another set of rules to their opposition.
You do know of course that in addition to protecting local Democratic Party shake-down artists from prosecution –Ms. Klobuchar was ----- (drum-roll please) ---- a lobbyist for the immensely corrupt Global Crossing Corporation (a company second only to ENRON for greed and theft).
Clean your own house before you howl about the mess next door, Sam.
For High Flying Spider Woman...
Update: Senate Bill 214 has apparently just been passed unanimously without amendment.
Section 2 of the bill, introduced by Feinstein, says:
"Section 2: S. 214 would amend the United States Code (Title 28, Section 546) to require an interim appointment made by the Attorney General to expire after 120 days or when a successor is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, whichever comes first. If at the end of the 120 day period no successor has been confirmed, the relevant district court would be authorized to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. "
When the Patriot Act was reauthorized in 2006 a little-known provision giving authority to the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. attorneys (like the ones who were fired) indefinitely had been slipped in.
The passing of Feinstein's S. 214 eliminates this provision.
MY GOD we need investigations to uncover who in the Senate is initiating this assertion of legal power!!!!
They can't do that!! Don't you understand its, its, its LEGAL!!
This needs to stop, next thing you know people will be demanding that Nancy Pelosi's hotels be unionized and she be forced to pay her employees a living wage.
What's very different here is that the Bush Administration fired its own appointees in the middle of a term. Why? Because they were too aggressive in pursuing Republicans committing misdeeds (e.g., Carol Lam in San Diego, who went after Randy Cunningham) or not aggressive enough in pursuing Democrats. This White House only wants partisan "yes men" working for it. Everything they have done in the past seven years demonstrates this.
without needing Congressional confirmation..
Thanks for pointing out the "timing and circumstances" of these particular firings.
In news brief today, Bush made it very clear that he is going to bull his way through; said dems are making this a PARTISAN political issue [like he doesn't know anything about that kind of stuff] and that he will NOT allow them to score political points and play politics with honorable white house officials -- in a "show trial" -- nor will they get the subponeas they want. "I hope they don't choose confrontation; I will oppose them. . . ," he said.
David Bois [counsel for Gore election recount] said the administration doesn't have any legal legs under them to refuse subponeas.
It all boils down to one thing: will Karl Rove and Harriet Meiers testify? I daresay that Gonzales, Rove, Miers -- and our dear leader -- are in a cold sweat right now.
Chris Matthews/Hardball and one guest in particular were brimming with glee that Bush "finally" got mad and put his foot down. [I think he's banking that he can bluster it out -- and distract from the war.] The dems are going to go slow and not over-reach.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/19/us_attorneys/index.html
The Dem's found out that middle America does see eye to eye with them on the war, minumum wage, or global warming. The Dem's don't have a winning agenda, except for taking down the competition. That's all they know how to do. Even if they can't get the targeted subject on a real crime, they'll tie him out legally and financially. That's the Dem's plan of attack now. They can't win America's heart.
According to the Washington Post:
"The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case."
In essence, the proposed penalty against the tobacco industry was scaled back from $130 billion to $10 billion.
Allegedly, witnesses were asked to change their testimonies in order to reduce the damage amounts.
So, in other words, Bush appointees could have been involved in witness tampering to favor a reduced penalty to Big Tobacco.
Attorney Sharon Eubanks has come forward to say that Gonzales was attempting to steer the trial in 2005. She also said her supervisor told her to have key witnesses change their testimonies and ordered her to read a closing statement that had been written by Bush loyalists.
The Washington Post reported, "High-ranking Justice Department officials said there was no political meddling in the case, and the department's Office of Professional Responsibility concurred after an investigation."
Will Gonzales step down?
If you're right, it's a long way around just to get rid of Rove who will be gone in less than two years anyway.
"In essence, the proposed penalty against the tobacco industry was scaled back from $130 billion to $10 billion." We knew there was something particlarly "skanky" about this -- now we're beginning to know why. Just the tip of the iceberg too.
Diana,
It IS a long way round -- and I'm noticing how repubs are positively willing to give Gonzales up. That combined with the prospect of Chertoff, and Travis's reminder of that little-known provision in the Patriot Act, makes me think this investigation if going to turn over a lot of rocks that perhaps weren't originally intended.
There is also the distinct possibility that there are more sacrifical lambs in the offing to take our minds off the fact that the back door to Iran has deliberately been left wide open, whether by deal making or concensus is probably another wretched story.
Your article is chock full of good information which I will come back and reread.