Revision as of 12:15, 9 June 2008 edit75.207.155.10 (talk) Reverting edit of Bdushaw, Wecht case is a politically motivated case that is under review with Siegleman case within the US Attorney Dismissal Review - Formal Warning: Misplaced Pages:Three_revert_rule← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:49, 9 November 2024 edit undoGreenC bot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,764 edits Move 1 url. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#foxnews.com/section/year/ | ||
(826 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|George W. Bush administration controversy}} | |||
] | |||
{{for|the dismissal of U.S. attorneys in 2017|2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys}} | |||
<!-- | |||
{{Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy}} | |||
Please bring proposed significant changes to the lead section to the talk page first. | |||
{{George W. Bush series}} | |||
Read the citations and sources and discuss at the talk page before removing | |||
On December 7, 2006, the ]'s ] ordered the midterm dismissal of seven ].<ref> ''The Washington Post'', March 14, 2007</ref> Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the ] were using the U.S. attorney positions for political advantage. The allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of ] politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage ] politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.<ref name=Bowermaster> | |||
the term "unprecedented." | |||
{{cite news |title=Charges may result from firings, say two former U.S. attorneys |first=David |last=Bowermaster |newspaper=] |date=May 9, 2007 | url=https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/charges-may-result-from-firings-say-two-former-us-attorneys//|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221130105427/https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/charges-may-result-from-firings-say-two-former-us-attorneys// | access-date=May 16, 2007|archive-date=2022-11-30 }} | |||
Thanks. | |||
--> | |||
The '''dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy''' is an ongoing ] ] dispute initiated by the unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven ]s on ], ] by the ]'s ]. The U.S. attorneys were dismissed without explanation and replaced with interim appointees, under the then-recent provisions of the ] ] reauthorization.<ref name='Newsweek-Sceifo-2007-03-15'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Julie | last=Scelfo | coauthors= | title='Quite Unprecedented': Former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White explains why the firing of eight federal prosecutors could threaten the historic independence of federal law-enforcement officials. | date=March 15, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17627519/site/newsweek/page/0/ | work =Newsweek | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name='WP-Eggen-2007-03-14'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Dan; | last=Eggen | coauthors= Paul Kane | title=Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made': But Attorney General Defends Firings of Eight U.S. Attorneys | date=March 14 ,2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300776.html | work =Washington Post | pages =A01 | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name='WP-Graphic-2007-03-06'> | |||
{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Fired U.S. Attorneys | date=March 6, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/03/06/GR2007030600062.html | work =Washington Post | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name='CBS-Public-Eye-2007-03-14'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Brian | last=Montopoli | coauthors= | title=So Is This U.S. Attorney Purge Unprecedented Or Not? | date=March 14, 2007 | publisher=CBS News | url =http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/14/publiceye/entry2571144.shtml | work =Public Eye | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-29 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name= 'Boston-Globe-AP-Jordan-2007-09-15'> | |||
{{cite news | first= Lara Jakes | last= Jordan | coauthors= (Associated Press) | title= Attorney general bids farewell to Justice: Praises work of department | date= September 15, 2007 | publisher= | url = http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/15/attorney_general_bids_farewell_to_justice/ | work = Boston Globe | pages = | accessdate = 2007-09-19}}</ref> | |||
The dismissed U.S. Attorneys had all been appointed by ] ] and confirmed by the ], more than four years earlier.<ref name='WP-Gonzaales-2007-04-15'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Alberto R. | last=Gonzales | coauthors= | title=Nothing Improper | date=April 15, 2004 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401010.html | work =Washington Post | pages =B07 | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name='NPR-ME-2007-03-14'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Renee | last=Montagne | coauthors= David Burnham (interviewee) | title=Context: How U.S. Attorneys Are Hired and Fired: Interview with David Burnham | date=March 14, 2007 · | publisher=National Public Radio | url =http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8356415 | work =Morning Edition | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-29 | language = }} | |||
</ref> | |||
At least two other attorneys were dismissed without explanation or cause in 2005-2006. Twenty-six or more U.S. Attorneys had been under consideration for dismissal during this time period.<ref> | |||
Kellman, Laurie (Associated Press). ''Washington Post'' May 17, 2007. Retrieved May 17, 2007. | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
Eggen, Dan; and Amy Goldstein. ''Washington Post'' May 17, 200, Page A01. Retrieved May 17, 2007. | |||
</ref><ref name='WP-Memos-List-2007-05-28'> | |||
{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Memos Suggested DOJ Fire 26 U.S. Attorneys | date=May 17, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051700605.html | work =Washington Post | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }} | |||
</ref> | |||
The firings received attention via hearings in ] in ] and by ] the controversy had national visibility. ] ] stated that the U.S. Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president" and described the affair as "an overblown personnel matter."<ref> | |||
{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-07 |url=http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070307/oppose07.art.htm |title=They lost my confidence: Attorneys' dismissals were related to performance, not to politics |author=Alberto R. Gonzales|work=USA Today|date=], ]|page=A10}} | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news |accessdate=2007-06-20 |url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/whitehouse/story/15780.html |title=U.S. Attorneys Scandal: Bush defends the firing of U.S. attorneys|date=], ] |author=Ron Hutcheson, Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor|publisher=]}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Congressional investigations have focused on whether the ] and the ] were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations are that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of ] politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage ] politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.<ref> | |||
{{cite news |title=Charges may result from firings, say two former U.S. attorneys |first=David |last=Bowermaster |publisher=The Seattle Times |date=May 9, 2007 | url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003699882_webmckayforum09m.html accessed=5-16-2007}} | |||
</ref><ref name = "WashingtonPost-20070513"> | </ref><ref name = "WashingtonPost-20070513"> | ||
{{cite news |title=Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals | |
{{cite news |title=Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals |first1=Dan |last1=Eggen |first2=Amy |last2=Goldstein |newspaper=] |date=May 14, 2007|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301106.html |access-date=May 18, 2007}} | ||
</ref> The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees under provisions in the 2005 ] reauthorization.<ref name="Newsweek-Sceifo-2007-03-15">{{cite news | first=Julie | last=Scelfo | title='Quite Unprecedented': Former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White explains why the firing of eight federal prosecutors could threaten the historic independence of federal law-enforcement officials. | date=March 15, 2007 | url =http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17627519/site/newsweek/page/0/ | work =Newsweek | access-date = May 28, 2007}}{{dead link|date=August 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref><ref name="WP-Eggen-2007-03-14">{{cite news | first1=Dan | last1=Eggen |first2=Paul |last2=Kane | title=Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made': But Attorney General Defends Firings of Eight U.S. Attorneys | date=March 14, 2007 | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300776_pf.html | newspaper =] | pages =A01 | access-date = May 28, 2007}}</ref><ref name="WP-Graphic-2007-03-06">{{cite news | title=Fired U.S. Attorneys | date=March 6, 2007| url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/03/06/GR2007030600062.html | newspaper =]}}</ref><ref name="CBS-Public-Eye-2007-03-14">{{cite news | first=Brian | last=Montopoli | title=So Is This U.S. Attorney Purge Unprecedented Or Not? | date=March 14, 2007 | work=] | url =http://www.cbsnews.com/news/so-is-this-us-attorney-purge-unprecedented-or-not/ <!-- | work =] --> | access-date = May 29, 2007}}</ref><ref name="Boston-Globe-AP-Jordan-2007-09-15"> | |||
</ref> | |||
{{cite news | first= Lara Jakes | last= Jordan | agency= ] | title= Attorney general bids farewell to Justice: Praises work of department | date= September 15, 2007| url = http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/15/attorney_general_bids_farewell_to_justice/ | work = ] | access-date = September 19, 2007}}</ref> | |||
Clear explanations for the dismissals remain elusive, however, with several administration officials providing contradictory testimony or testimony contradicted by documents requested or formally ]ed by Congressional committees and subsequently made public.<ref name='WP-Eggen-2007-02-18'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | coauthors= | title=6 of 7 Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Had Positive Job Evaluations | date=February 18, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701509_pf.html | work =Washington Post | pages =A11 | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name='WP-Eggen-2007-03-30'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | coauthors= Paul Kane | title=Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales on firings | date=March 30, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032900352_pf.html | work =Washington Post | pages =A01 | accessdate = 2007-05-27 }} | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news | work= CNN.com | publisher= Cable News Network | date= May 28, 2007 | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/23/goodling.testimony/index.html|date=], ] | title=Deputy AG 'not fully candid,' ex-Justice aide testifies|publisher=]}} | |||
</ref> | |||
A subsequent report by the ] in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed", and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".<ref name="USDOJ-IG">{{cite web|url=https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0809a/final.pdf|title=An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006|pages=355–358|publisher=DOJ Inspector General|access-date=2011-04-17|archive-date=2020-03-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200302142947/https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0809a/final.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> In July 2010, the Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining the firing was inappropriately political but not criminal, observing that "evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of ]. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."<ref name="fox-no-charges">{{cite news|title=Justice Dept. Opts Not to File Charges for Bush-Era U.S. Attorney Firings|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-dept-opts-not-to-file-charges-for-bush-era-u-s-attorney-firings|website=]|agency=]|date=July 21, 2010}}</ref> | |||
Critics argue that the scandal has undermined both the integrity of the Department of Justice and the ] tradition of U.S. Attorneys.<ref> | |||
{{cite news |accessdate=2007-05-21 |url= http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9977681 |title=Ex-U.S. Official: Fired Prosecutors Were 'Smeared' |author= Ari Shapiro |date=],] |publisher= ]}} | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news |accessdate=2007-05-21 |url= http://www.coxwashington.com/news/content/reporters/stories/2007/05/08/BC_FIRED_PROSECUTORS04_COX.html | |||
|title=Former Justice Official: Fired U.S. Attorneys Among the Best |author= Rebecca Carr |date=],] |publisher= Cox Newspapers}} | |||
</ref><ref name='McClatchy-Taylor-2007-05-16'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Marisa | last=Taylor | coauthors= Margaret Talev | title=U. S. Attorneys: 2 additional prosecutors were considered for ouster | date=May 16, 2007 | publisher=McClatchy Newspapers | url =http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/margaret_talev/story/16195.html | work =McClatchy Washington Bureau | pages = | accessdate = 2007-06-20 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite web |accessdate=2007-05-29 |url= http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200703/031907.html |title=Statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy: On S. 214, Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act Of 2007 |author= Patrick Leahy |date=],] |publisher= Senator Patrick Leahy}} | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
Others have gone so far as to liken the event to ], referring to it as ''Gonzales]''. | |||
{{cite news |accessdate=2007-06-15 |url= http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/06/15/segments/80679 |title= Gonzales-gate |first = Bob |last = Garfield |date=],] |work = ] | publisher = National Public Radio {] }} | |||
</ref> | |||
Many members of Congress from both parties had called for Attorney General Gonzales's resignation.<ref> | |||
See references on ] | |||
</ref> | |||
By mid-September ], nine senior staff of the Department of Justice most closely associated with the controversy had resigned, and many DOJ senior officials not directly involved with the controversy had also resigned.<ref name='WPost-Eggen-2007-09-19'> | |||
{{cite news | first= Dan | last= Eggen | coauthors= Elizabeth Williamson | title= Democrats May Tie Confirmation to Gonzales Papers | date= September 19, 2007| publisher= | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801379.html?nav=rss_politics | work = Washington Post | pages = A10 | accessdate = 2007-09-19 }} | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news |accessdate=2007-06-15 |title= Official Close to Attorney Firings Quits |first = Lara Jakes |last = Jordan |date=],] |publisher= Los Angeles Times}} | |||
</ref><ref name='WP-Eggen-2007-06-23'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | coauthors= | title=Third-in-Command at Justice Dept. Resigns: Mercer to Leave Washington Job but Keep U.S. Attorney's Position in Montana | date=Saturday, June 23, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201291.html?nav=rss_print/asection | work =Washington Post | pages =A04 | accessdate = 2007-06-25 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name='McClatchy-Gordon-2007-08-22'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Greg | last=Gordon | coauthors= | title=Justice Department lawyer accused of partisanship resigns | date=August 22, 2007 | publisher=McClatchy Newspapers | url =http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19143.html | work =McClatchy Washington Bureau | pages = | accessdate = 2007-08-28 | language = }} | |||
</ref> | |||
The most prominent resignations include: | |||
:* Attorney General ]<ref name='TalkingPointsMemo-Gonzales Resignation Letter-2007-08-27'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Alberto R. | last= Gonzales | coauthors= | title= Letter of Resignation | date= August 26, 2007 | publisher= Talking Points Memo | url = http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/gonzales-resigns/ | work = (via Talking Points Memo Document Collection)| pages = | accessdate = 2007-08-27 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name='NYTimes-Nizza-2007-08-27'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Mike | last=Nizza | coauthors= | title=Gonzales, a Surprisingly Unexpected Resignation | date=August 27, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/embattled-attorney-general-to-resign/ | work =New York Times | pages = | accessdate = 2007-08-27 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name='NY Times-Myers-2007-08-27'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Steven Lee | last=Meyers | coauthors= | title=Embattled Attorney General Resigns | date=August 27, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/washington/27cnd-gonzales.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1188223973-qjF01bvquBXoj3coe4wFvg | work =New York Times | pages = | accessdate = 2007-08-27 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name='NY Times-Phillips-2007-08-27'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Kate | last=Phillips | coauthors= | title=Gonzales Is Resigning | date=August 27, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/gonzales-is-resigning/ | work =New York Times | pages = | accessdate = 2007-08-27 | language = }} | |||
</ref> | |||
:* ] ]; | |||
:* Acting ] ] resigned from the ''acting'' office prior to Senate confirmation hearings for the same position, and returned to his post as U.S. Attorney for Montana (he held dual positions); | |||
:* ] for the Attorney General ] | |||
:* Chief of Staff for the Deputy Attorney General ]; | |||
:* Director of the ] ]; | |||
:* the subsequently appointed Director to the EOUSA, ], also the former acting Assistant Attorney General for the ]; | |||
:* the Department of Justice's White House Liaison ] | |||
==Issues in brief== | |||
As of ], ], a month and a half after the resignation of Attorney General ] from office, and more than 120 days after the rescinding of the 2005 ] reauthorization clause which had permitted unlimited terms for unconfirmed-by-the-Senate interim attorneys, 23 of 96 U.S. attorney offices were headed by ''interim'' or ''acting'' U.S. attorneys, and 21 of those offices had no presidential nominee pending for the vacancy.<ref name=USSenate-Leahy-Feinstein-2007-10-31> | |||
By tradition, all U.S. attorneys are asked to resign at the start of a new administration. The new President may elect to keep or remove any U.S. attorney. They are traditionally replaced, collectively, only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. attorneys hold a political office, in which the president nominates candidates to office, the Senate confirms and, consequently, they serve at the pleasure of the president. When a new president is from a different political party, typically almost all of the resignations are eventually accepted<ref name=doj20010314> | |||
{{cite news | first= Leahy | last= Patrick | coauthors= Diane Feinstein | title= Leahy, Feinstein Press Justice Department On U.S. Attorney Vacancies | date= October 31, 2007 | publisher= | url = http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200710/103107d.html | work = Office of U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy | pages = | accessdate = 2007-11-01 }} </ref> | |||
{{cite press release |title= White House and Justice Department begin U.S. Attorney transition | |||
|publisher=Office of the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice |date=March 14, 2001 |url=https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm}} | |||
</ref> and the positions are then filled by newly confirmed appointees, typically from the new president's party.<ref name="WP-Discuss-Gerson-2007-03-14"> | |||
{{cite news | first=Stuart M. | last=Gerson | title=Inside the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys Controversy | date=March 14, 2007 | newspaper=] | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html | access-date = 2007-05-29 }} | |||
</ref><ref name=McClatchy20070313>{{cite news | title=Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys| publisher=] |via=realcities.com |url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16897325.htm | date=March 13, 2007}}</ref> While U.S. attorneys are political appointees, however, it is essential to their effectiveness that they are politically impartial in deciding which cases to prosecute and in arguing those cases before judges and juries with diverse views.<ref name="NLJ-Coyle-2007-04-27">{{cite magazine | author=Marcia Coyle | url=https://www.law.com/almID/900005554868/ | title= Scandal Over U.S. Attorneys' Firing Could Cloud Other Cases | magazine =] | date =2007-04-27}}</ref> | |||
Some U.S. senators were concerned about a provision in the 2006 re-authorization of the ] that eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of U.S. attorneys made by the ] to fill vacancies. The revised USA PATRIOT Act permitted the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without a term limit in office, and avoid a confirming vote by the Senate. The change in the law undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate and gave the attorney general greater appointment powers than the president, since the president's U.S. attorney appointees are required to be confirmed by the Senate and those of the attorney general did not require confirmation.<ref>{{cite news|author1=Marisa Taylor |author2=Greg Gordon |url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/greg_gordon/story/15610.html |title=New U.S. attorneys come from Bush's inner circle |publisher=] |date=2007-01-26 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001820/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/greg_gordon/story/15610.html |archive-date=September 27, 2007 }}</ref> | |||
{{Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy}} | |||
<!-- here starts the issues in brief ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** --> | |||
== Issues in brief == | |||
The following sections briefly summarize aspects of the controversy. More thorough analyses are further below, or in the related articles. | |||
The Senate was concerned that in dismissing the seven U.S. attorneys which had been confirmed, the administration planned to fill the vacancies with its own choices, bypassing Senate confirmation and the traditional consultation with senators in the selection process. Congress rescinded this provision on June 14, 2007, and President Bush promptly signed the bill into law.<ref name="Help Wanted"> | |||
=== Changed interim appointment law in 2006 === | |||
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | title=In U.S. Attorney's Offices, Help Wanted: Justice Dept. Seeking Replacements for Departing Temporary Prosecutors | date=June 17, 2007 | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/16/AR2007061601080.html?nav=rss_politics | newspaper =] | pages =A04 | access-date =June 17, 2007}} | |||
The controversy publicized an unnoticed 2006 change in the law governing appointments of U.S. Attorneys. The re-authorization of the ] in 2006 eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys made by the ] to fill vacancies. The change gave the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the President, because presidential appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, but the Attorney General's did not require Senate confirmation.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | author=Marisa Taylor and Greg Gordon | url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/greg_gordon/story/15610.html | title= New U.S. attorneys come from Bush's inner circle | |||
| publisher =] | date =Jan 26, 2007}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Bills to rescind the provision were approved by very large majorities in the Senate and the House prior to the end of March, 2007. Ultimately S.214 was signed into law by the President on ], ], designated Public Law No: 110-34.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | author=David C. Iglesias | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html | title=Why I was Fired | publisher =] | date =Mar 21, 2007}} | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news | author=David Johnson and Carl Hulse | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/washington/27attorneys.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin | title=Aide to Gonzalez Won’t Testify About Dismissals | publisher =] | date =Mar 27, 2007}} | |||
</ref><ref name=LOC-Thomas-S214-history> | |||
(S.214 & H.R.580) ''THOMAS'' (Library of Congress). Retrieved May 28, 2007. (Updated as activity occurs on the bill.) | |||
</ref> | |||
The new law specified that all interim attorneys then in office shall serve terms ending 120 days from the signing of the bill. As of June 14, 2007, the Department of Justice had more than twenty United States attorney positions that were not presidential appointees, which are filled by either ''acting'' US attorneys (held by civil service ''first U.S. attorneys'') or ''interim'' U.S. attorneys appointed by the Attorney general. Terms of district court-appointed interim US Attorneys are unaffected by the new law--there was one when the bill was signed: Paula D. Silsby of Maine, appointed in 2001.<ref name='WP-Eggen-2007-06-17'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | coauthors= | title=In U.S. Attorney's Offices, Help Wanted: Justice Dept. Seeking Replacements for Departing Temporary Prosecutors | date=June 17 , 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/16/AR2007061601080.html?nav=rss_politics | work =Washington Post | pages =A04 | accessdate = 2007-06-17 | language = }} | |||
</ref> | |||
:''See also: ]. | |||
=== |
===Administration rationale unclear=== | ||
{{see also|Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy#Inspector General Report and special prosecutor|l1=Inspector General Report and special prosecutor|Carol Lam|Rick Renzi|Paul K. Charlton}} | |||
The reasons for the dismissal of each individual U.S. Attorney remain unclear. A suggested motivation is the administration wanted to make room for U.S. Attorneys that were more sympathetic to the administration's political agenda, and to advance promising conservatives.<ref> | |||
The reasons for the dismissal of each individual U.S. attorney were unclear. Two suggested motivations were that the administration wanted to make room for U.S. attorneys who would be more sympathetic to the administration's political agenda, and the administration wanted to advance the careers of promising conservatives.<ref name=Bowermaster/><ref name=JaneAnnMorrison>{{cite news|newspaper=] |url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Jan-18-Thu-2007/news/12044953.html |date=January 18, 2007 |first=Jane Ann |last=Morrison |title=Bush administration's ouster of U.S. attorneys an insulting injustice |access-date=April 16, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930225154/http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Jan-18-Thu-2007/news/12044953.html |archive-date=September 30, 2007 }}</ref><ref name=Taylor-Gordon20070126>{{cite news|date=2007-01-26 |title=Gonzales appoints political loyalists into vacant U.S. attorneys slots |first1=Marisa |last1=Taylor |first2=Greg |last2=Gordon |publisher=] |url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16555903.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070325194003/http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16555903.htm |archive-date=March 25, 2007 }}</ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
Critics said that the attorneys were fired for failing to prosecute ]ic politicians, for failing to prosecute claims of election fraud that would hamper Democratic voter registration as retribution for prosecuting ] politicians, or for failing to pursue adult obscenity prosecutions.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.salon.com/2007/04/19/doj_obscenity/ | date=April 19, 2007 | first=Mark |last=Follman | title=The U.S. attorneys scandal gets dirty | work=] | access-date=2009-07-03}}</ref> | |||
|publisher=Las Vegas Review-Journal | |||
The administration and its supporters said that the attorneys were dismissed for job-performance reasons "related to policy, priorities and management", and that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.<ref name="Gonzales-03-06-07">{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-07 |url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070307/oppose07.art.htm |title=They lost my confidence: Attorneys' dismissals were related to performance, not to politics |first=Alberto R. |last=Gonzales |authorlink=Alberto Gonzales |newspaper=] |date=March 7, 2007 |page=A10}}</ref> However, at least six attorneys had recently received positive evaluations of their performance from the Department of Justice.<ref>{{cite news |newspaper=] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/washington/25lawyers.html |date=February 25, 2007 | first=David |last=Johnston |title=Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Praised in Evaluations | access-date=January 26, 2009}}</ref> In September 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General's investigation concluded that the dismissals were politically motivated and improper.<ref name="USDOJ-IG"/> | |||
| url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Jan-18-Thu-2007/news/12044953.html | date=January 18, 2007 | author=Jane Ann Morrison | |||
| title=Bush administration's ouster of U.S. attorneys an insulting injustice | accessdate=2007-04-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | date=January 26, 2007 | title=Gonzales appoints political loyalists into vacant U.S. attorneys slots | author=Marisa Taylor |Author2=Greg Gordon | publisher=McClatchy Newspapers | url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16555903.htm}}</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news |publisher=Seattle Times |url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003699882_webmckayforum09m.html |date=May 9, 2007 | author=David Bowermaster |title=Charges may result from firings, say two former U.S. attorneys | accessdate=2007-05-10}} | |||
</ref> | |||
The administration and its supporters say the attorneys were dismissed for job-performance reasons "related to policy, priorities and management," and that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. <!-- UNSOURCED STATMENT: However, all but one of the attorneys had above-average overall ratings from nonpartisan groups.{{Fact|date=December 2007}} --> Critics say that the attorneys were fired for failing to prosecute ]ic politicians, particularly in relation to claims of election fraud, or were fired in retribution for prosecuting ] politicians. | |||
The ] issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.<ref name="NYT-Stolberg-2007-03-17"> | |||
:''See also: ], ], and ]'' | |||
{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-17 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/washington/17assess.html?ref=washington | |||
|title=With Shifting Explanations, White House Adds to Storm|first=Sheryl Gay |last=Stolberg |authorlink=Sheryl Gay Stolberg |date=March 17, 2007 |work=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-17 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Congress-Prosecutors.html |title=Republican Support for Gonzales Erodes|agency=Associated Press |work=The New York Times |date=March 17, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-17 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601046.html|title=Accounts of Prosecutors' Dismissals Keep Shifting|author=Dan Eggen|newspaper=The Washington Post |page=A1|date=March 17, 2007}}</ref> The origin and evolution of the list of attorneys to be dismissed remained unclear.<ref name="WP-Senate-Judiciary-Transcript-Gonzales-2007-04-19">{{cite news | agency = Congressional Quarterly Transcript Service | title=Gonzales Testifies Before Senate Panel | date=April 19, 2007 | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902035.html| newspaper =] | access-date = June 8, 2007}}</ref><ref name="WP-AP-Jordan-2007-05-15">{{cite news| first= Lara Jakes | last= Jordan | agency= ] | title= Gonzales: Deputy Was Pointman on Firings | date= May 15, 2007| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500755.html | newspaper = ] | access-date = June 7, 2007}}</ref><ref name="Salon-Scherer-McNulty-2007-05-23">{{cite news | first=Michael | last=Scherer | title=McNulty hits back at Goodling | date=2007-05-23 | publisher=Salon.com | url=https://www.salon.com/2007/05/23/mcnulty_response/ | work=Salon | access-date=2007-05-25 | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121020164237/http://www.salon.com/2007/05/23/mcnulty_response/ | archive-date=October 20, 2012 }}</ref><ref name="WP-AP-Jordan-2007-05-29">{{cite news| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901220.html | title = Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales on firings | first = Lara Jakes | last = Jordan | author2 = (Associated Press) | newspaper = The Washington Post | date = 2007-03-29 | access-date = 2007-05-27 }}</ref> | |||
In response to the Inspector General's report, in September 2008 Attorney General ] appointed Acting ] for the ], ] as special prosecutor to determine if administration officials had perjured themselves in testimony to Congress.<ref name="IHT-09-29-2008">{{cite news|last=Lichtblau |first=Eric |url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/29/america/justice.php |title=U.S. appoints special prosecutor |newspaper=International Herald Tribune |date=2008-09-29 |access-date=2011-04-17}}</ref> Her investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with perjury.<ref name="fox-no-charges"/> | |||
===Politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice=== | |||
=== Administration testimony contradicted by documents === | |||
Attorney General Gonzales, in a confidential memorandum dated March 1, 2006, delegated authority to senior DOJ staff ] and ] to hire and dismiss political appointees and some civil service positions. | |||
Members of Congress investigating the dismissals have found that ] from Department of Justice officials appears to contradict internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remains unclear despite hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and senior DOJ staff in congressional committee hearings.<ref> | |||
{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-20 |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/19/politics/main2583236.shtml |title=Dems' Strategy On Attorneys Takes Shape |author=Mike Allen |date=2007-03-20 | publisher=]}} | |||
</ref><ref name='NYT-Lipton-2007-05-03'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Eric | last=Lipton | coauthors= David Johnston | title=Justice Department announces inquiry into its hiring practices | date=2007-05-03 | publisher= | url =http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/washington/03attorneys.html?ex=1335844800&en=f7f495103ddadb4d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss | work =The New York Times | pages =A18 | accessdate = 2007-05-09 }} | |||
</ref> | |||
The Bush administration has issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.<ref name='NYT-Stolberg-2007-03-17'> | |||
{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-17 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/washington/17assess.html?ref=washington | |||
|title=With Shifting Explanations, White House Adds to Storm|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg |date=], ] |work=New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-17 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Congress-Prosecutors.html |title=Republican Support for Gonzales Erodes | |||
|author=Associated Press |work=New York Times |date=], ]}} | |||
</ref><ref>{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-17 |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601046.html | |||
|title=Accounts of Prosecutors' Dismissals Keep Shifting | |||
|author=Dan Eggen | |||
|work=Washington Post |page=A01 | |||
|date=], ]}} | |||
</ref><ref>{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-17 | |||
|url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16919399.htm | |||
|title=U.S. Attorneys: A look at what's behind the U.S. attorney flap |author=Ron Hutcheson | |||
|publisher=McClatchy Newspapers}} | |||
</ref> The origin and evolution of the list of attorneys to be dismissed remains unclear.<ref name='WP-Senate-Judiciary-Transcript-Gonzales-2007-04-19'> | |||
{{cite news | author = Congressional Quarterly Transcript Service | title=Gonzales Testifies Before Senate Panel | |||
| date=April 19, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902035.html | |||
| work =Washington Post | pages = | accessdate = 2007-06-08 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name='WP-AP-Jordan-2007-05-15'> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| first= Lara Jakes | last= Jordan | coauthors= (Associated Press) | title= Gonzales: Deputy Was Pointman on Firings | date= May 15, 2007 | publisher= | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500755.html | work = Washington Post | pages = | accessdate = 2007-06-07 }} | |||
</ref><ref name='Salon-Scherer-McNulty-2007-05-23'> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| first=Michael | last=Scherer | coauthors= | title=McNulty hits back at Goodling | date=May 23, 2007 | publisher=Salon.com | url =http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/05/23/mcnulty_response/index.html | work =Salon | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-25 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref name='WP-AP-Jordan-2007-05-29'> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901220.html | title = Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales on firings | first = Lara Jakes | last = Jordan | coauthor = (Associated Press) | work = Washington Post | date = ] | accessdate = 2007-05-27 }} | |||
</ref> | |||
On May 2, 2007, the Department of Justice announced two separate investigations into hirings conducted by Goodling: one by the department's ], and a second by the ].<ref name="NYT-Lipton-2007-05-03"/> | |||
=== Politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice === | |||
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, Goodling stated that she had "crossed the line" and broken civil service laws regulating hiring for civil service positions, and had improperly weighed political factors in assessing applicants.<ref name="NYT-Stout-2007-05-23">{{cite news | first=David | last=Stout | title=Ex-Gonzales Aide Testifies, 'I Crossed the Line' | date=2007-05-23 | url =https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/washington/23cnd-monica.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin | work =The New York Times | access-date = 2007-05-23 }}</ref> | |||
Attorney General Gonzales, in a confidential ], ] order, not published in the Federal Register, formally delegated authority to senior DOJ staff ] and ] to hire and dismiss political appointees and some civil service positions.<ref name='Nat-Jnl-Waas-2007-04-30'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Murray | last=Waas | coauthors= | title=Secret Order By Gonzales Delegated Extraordinary Powers To Aides | date=2007-04-30 | publisher=National Journal Group, Inc. | url =http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070430nj1.htm | work =National Journal | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-09 | language = }} | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
(via Talking Points Memo, May 9, 2007.) Retrieved May 10, 2007.<br> | |||
:Alberto Gonzales, Office of the Attorney General. Order 2808-2006. <br>Delegation of certain personnel authorities to the Chief of Staff to the Attorney General and to the White House Liaison of the Department of Justice. March 1, 2006. | |||
</ref> | |||
On ], ] the Department of Justice announced that two separate investigations into hirings conducted by Goodling had been initiated several weeks earlier: one by the department's Inspector General, and a second by the Office of Professional Responsibility.<ref name='NYT-Lipton-2007-05-03'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Eric | last=Lipton | coauthors= David Johnston | title=Justice Department announces inquiry into its hiring practices | date=2007-05-03 | publisher= | url =http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/washington/03attorneys.html?ex=1335844800&en=f7f495103ddadb4d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss | work =The New York Times | pages =A18 | accessdate = 2007-05-09 }} | |||
</ref> | |||
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, on ], ], Goodling stated that she had "crossed the line" and broke civil service laws regulating hiring for civil service positions, and had improperly weighed political factors in assessing applicants.<ref name='NYT-Stout-2007-05-23'> | |||
{{cite news | first=David | last=Stout | coauthors= | title=Ex-Gonzales Aide Testifies, ‘I Crossed the Line’ | date=May 23, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/washington/23cnd-monica.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin | work =New York Times | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-23 | language = }} | |||
</ref> | |||
According to a January 2009 Justice Department report, investigators found that ], as interim head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, "favored applicants with conservative political or ideological affiliations and disfavored applicants with civil rights or human rights experience whom he considered to be overly liberal". The positions under consideration were not political, but career, for which the political and ideological views of candidates are not to be considered, according to federal law and guidelines.<ref>{{cite news | first=Theresa | last=Cook | title=Report Raps Bradley Schlozman, Former Justice Department Official, for Political Bias | date=2009-01-13 | url =https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/DOJ/story?id=6637861 | work =ABC News | access-date = 2009-02-09 }} | |||
In a ], ] letter to the ], the ] and Counsel for the ] confirmed that they were expanding their investigation beyond "the removals of United States Attorneys" to also include "DOJ hiring and personnel decisions" by ] and other Justice Department employees.<ref name="May 30, 2007 Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee"> | |||
{{cite news |url=http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/30/doj-inspector-general-glenn-fine-expands-improper-hiring-probe-of-goodling/ |title=Letter from Justice Department Inspector General and Counsel, Office of Professional Responsibility |publisher=Gonzales Watch |date=], ] |author=Gonzales Watch }} | |||
</ref><ref name='WaPo-Eggen-2007-05-30'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | title=Justice Dept. Widens Firings Probe | date=2007-05-30 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/30/AR2007053001499.html | work =The Washington Post| | accessdate = 2007-05-30 }} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
In a letter of May 30, 2007, to the ], the ] and Counsel for the ] confirmed that they were expanding their investigation beyond "the removals of United States Attorneys" to include "DOJ hiring and personnel decisions" by Goodling and other Justice Department employees.<ref name="WaPo-Eggen-2007-05-30">{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | title=Justice Dept. Widens Firings Probe | date=2007-05-30 | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/30/AR2007053001499.html | newspaper =The Washington Post| access-date = 2007-05-30 }} | |||
=== Dismissed attorneys and elections === | |||
The controversy surrounding the U.S. Attorneys dismissals is often linked to elections or voter-fraud issues. Allegations are that some of the U.S. Attorneys were dismissed for failing to instigate investigations damaging to Democratic politicians, or for failing to more aggressively pursue voter-fraud cases.<ref name = "WashingtonPost-20070513"/><ref> | |||
{{cite news |title=No evidence of election crime, former U.S. attorney says |first=Richard |last=Roesler|publisher=The Spokesman Review |date=May 20, 2007 |url=http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=9951 |accessed=5-26-2007}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Such allegations have been made by some of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys themselves to suggest reasons they may have been dismissed.<ref> {{cite news | |||
|publisher = ] | url = http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/030107dnnatattorney.398bb40.html |title = Fired U.S. attorney alleges political pressure |date = 2007-02-28 |accessdate = 2007-05-26}} | |||
</ref> | |||
The background to the allegations is the recent tendency for elections in parts of the United States to be very close; an election outcome can be affected by a mere announced investigation of a politician. The use of U.S. Attorneys for partisan purposes is highly improper, particularly given the strong non-partisan traditions of the U.S. Attorneys. To date, the evidence supporting the notion that some of the dismissals were motivated by electoral interference remains circumstantial. | |||
:''See also: ], ], ] and ]'' | |||
:''See also: ] | |||
=== |
===Dismissed attorneys and elections=== | ||
{{See also|Pete Domenici|Heather Wilson|Bradley Schlozman}} | |||
* ''For a detailed chronology of events, see: ]''<br> | |||
The controversy surrounding the U.S. attorneys dismissals was often linked to elections or voter-fraud issues. Allegations were that some of the U.S. attorneys were dismissed for failing to instigate investigations damaging to Democratic politicians, or for failing to more aggressively pursue voter-fraud cases.<ref name = "WashingtonPost-20070513"/><ref>{{cite news |title=No evidence of election crime, former U.S. attorney says |first=Richard |last=Roesler|publisher=The Spokesman Review |date=2007-05-20 |url=http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=9951 |access-date=2007-05-26}}</ref> Such allegations were made by some of the dismissed U.S. attorneys themselves to suggest reasons they may have been dismissed.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper = ] | url = http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/030107dnnatattorney.398bb40.html | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070530041944/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/030107dnnatattorney.398bb40.html | archive-date = 2007-05-30 |title = Fired U.S. attorney alleges political pressure |date = 2007-02-28 |access-date = 2007-05-26}}</ref> | |||
* ''For details about individual dismissed attorneys, see: ]'' <br> | |||
The background to the allegations is the recent tendency for elections in parts of the United States to be very close; an election outcome can be affected by an announced investigation of a politician. It is explicit policy of the Department of Justice to avoid bringing voter-related cases during an election for this reason.<ref> | |||
* ''For access to released documents, email, and hearing transcripts, see: ]''<br> | |||
{{cite news |title=Justice Department reportedly bent rules on voter fraud charges|first=Richard |last=Serrano |newspaper= Los Angeles Times|date=2007-06-06 |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-jun-06-na-usattys6-story.html |access-date=2009-01-31}}</ref> In September 2008, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice concluded that some of the dismissals were motivated by the refusal of some of the U.S. attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases during the 2006 election cycle.<ref name="USDOJ-IG" /> | |||
* ''For descriptions of some of the congressional hearings, see: ]'' <br> | |||
==Fallout== | |||
==Appointment of U.S. Attorneys and the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization== | |||
By mid-September 2007, nine senior staff of the Department of Justice associated with the controversy had resigned.<ref name="WPost-Eggen-2007-09-19"/><ref name="Jordan">{{cite news |title= Official Close to Attorney Firings Quits |first = Lara Jakes |last = Jordan |date=June 15, 2007 |newspaper= Los Angeles Times}}</ref><ref name="WP-Eggen-2007-06-23"> | |||
===The appointment process for U.S. Attorneys=== | |||
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | title=Third-in-Command at Justice Dept. Resigns: Mercer to Leave Washington Job but Keep U.S. Attorney's Position in Montana | date= June 23, 2007 | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201291.html?nav=rss_print/asection | newspaper =The Washington Post | pages =A04 | access-date = 2007-06-25 }} | |||
The ] has the authority to appoint ], with the consent of the ], and the President may remove U.S. Attorneys from office.<ref> | |||
</ref><ref name="McClatchy-Gordon-2007-08-22"> | |||
{{USC|28|541}}</ref> | |||
In the event of a vacancy, the ] is authorized to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney. Before ], ], such interim appointments expired after 120 days, if a Presidential appointment had not been approved by the Senate. Vacancies that persisted beyond 120 days were filled through interim appointments made by the ] for the district of the vacant office.<ref name="Title28 Section 546 before Patriot"> | |||
{{USC|28|546}} (U.S. Code prior to amendments of the USA PATRIOT Act, as of the retrieval date March 15, 2007.) | |||
</ref> | |||
]-confirmed appointments to the ] (DOJ) offices, particularly U.S. Attorneys, are political in nature. Appointments to U.S. Attorney positions are often made in consultation with individual senators of the same party as the President. | |||
:''For further information:'' | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
===Revised interim appointment process in March 2006 === | |||
The ], signed into law ], ], amended the law for the interim appointment of U.S. Attorneys by deleting two provisions: (a) the 120-day maximum term for the Attorney General's interim appointees, and (b) the subsequent interim appointment authority of ]. (See ] for the text to the statute ({{UnitedStatesCode|28|546}}), and its amendments.) With the revision, an interim appointee can potentially serve indefinitely (though still removable by the President), if the President declines to nominate a U.S. Attorney for a vacancy, or the Senate either fails to act on a Presidential nomination, or rejects a nominee that is different than the interim appointee. | |||
The change was written into the bill by ] ] ] when the bill was modified in joint conference committee, reconciling the Senate and House versions of the bill.<ref name=Taylor-Gordon20070126> | |||
{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-18| url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16555903.htm |title=Gonzales appoints political loyalists into vacant U.S. attorneys slots |author=Marisa Taylor and Greg Gordon |publisher=McClatchy Newspapers |date=], ]}} | |||
</ref> | |||
During Senate hearings on ], ], Senator Specter stated that ], a committee staffer, had inserted the clause on behalf of the Department of Justice.<ref name=Kiel> | |||
{{cite web|accessdate= | |||
|title=Specter: "I Do Not Slip Things In" |date=], ]|author=Kiel, Paul | |||
|url=http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002487.php | |||
|work=TPMmuckraker}} | |||
</ref> Specter stated that the change in the law had been partly to address ] concerns expressed by a number of court districts, the issue being the interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys (]) by the courts (]).<ref name=Kiel/> The courts had appointed U.S. Attorneys for over a hundred years, however.<ref> | |||
''Congressional Record'', March 19, 2007. Pages S3240-S3241. (Also available via the Government Printing Office: | |||
</ref> The Department of Justice had been seeking a way to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval prior to 2005.<ref> | |||
{{cite news |date=], ] | title=Memo describes installing unconfirmed prosecutors: Justice official asked how to bypass Senate | author= Charlie Savage | publisher=Boston Globe |url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/04/28/memo_describes_installing_unconfirmed_prosecutors/}} | |||
</ref> | |||
On ], ], the Senate voted 94-2 to re-instate the 120-day term limit on interim attorneys appointed by the Attorney General.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | {{cite news | ||
|first=Greg | |||
|date=], ] | title=Senate OKs limits on Gonzales' authority | author=Pete Yost |coauthors=Lara Jakes Jordan | publisher=Associated Press}}</ref> | |||
|last=Gordon | |||
On ], the U.S. House voted to reinstate the 120-day term limit as well, by a vote of 329-78.<ref>Office of the Clerk, US House, , March 26, 2007. Retrieved March 30, 2007. | |||
|title=Justice Department lawyer accused of partisanship resigns | |||
</ref> The bill was eventually passed in identical form by both houses in May 2007 and was signed into law by the President on ], ].<ref name=LOC-Thomas-S214-history> | |||
|date=2007-08-22 | |||
(S.214 & H.R.580) ''THOMAS (Database),'' Library of Congress. Retrieved June 15, 2007. | |||
|publisher=McClatchy Newspapers | |||
</ref><ref name='White-House-Press Release-2007-06-14'> | |||
|url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19143.html | |||
{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=President Bush Signs S. 214 | date=June 14, 2007 | publisher=The White House - Office of the President of the United States | url =http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070614-6.html | work =Office of the Press Secretary | pages = | accessdate = 2007-06-16 | language = }} | |||
|work=McClatchy Washington Bureau | |||
</ref><ref name='WP-Eggen-2007-06-17' /> | |||
|access-date=2007-08-28 | |||
|url-status=dead | |||
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001814/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19143.html | |||
|archive-date=2007-09-27 | |||
}} | |||
</ref> The most prominent resignations include: | |||
]]] | |||
:* Attorney General ]<ref name="NYTimes-Nizza-2007-08-27"> | |||
{{cite news | first=Mike | last=Nizza | title=Gonzales, a Surprisingly Unexpected Resignation | date=2007-08-27 | url =http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/embattled-attorney-general-to-resign/ | newspaper=The New York Times | access-date = 2007-08-27 }}</ref><ref name="NY Times-Myers-2007-08-27">{{cite news | first=Steven Lee | last=Meyers | title=Embattled Attorney General Resigns | date=2007-08-27 | url =https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/washington/27cnd-gonzales.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1188223973-qjF01bvquBXoj3coe4wFvg | work =The New York Times | access-date = 2007-08-27 }}</ref><ref name="NY Times-Phillips-2007-08-27">{{cite news | first=Kate | last=Phillips | title=Gonzales Is Resigning | date=2007-08-27 | url =http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/gonzales-is-resigning/ | work =The New York Times | access-date = 2007-08-27 }}</ref> | |||
:* ] ]; | |||
:* Acting ] ] resigned from the ''acting'' office prior to Senate confirmation hearings for the same position, and returned to his post as U.S. Attorney for Montana (he held dual positions); | |||
:* ] for the Attorney General ] | |||
:* Chief of Staff for the Deputy Attorney General ]; | |||
:* Director of the ] (EOUSA) ]; | |||
:* the subsequently appointed Director to the EOUSA, ], also the former acting Assistant Attorney General for the ]; | |||
:* the Department of Justice's White House Liaison ] | |||
In June 2008, a grand jury was empaneled to consider criminal indictments against officials involved in the firings. The grand jury was presented evidence from ongoing investigations at the Department of Justice Inspector General's office and at the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility.<ref name="NYT-Lichtblau-2008-06-17">{{cite news | first= Eric | last= Lichtblau | title= Grand Jury Said to Look at Attorneys' Dismissals | date= 2008-06-17 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17attorneys.html?ref=washington | work = The New York Times | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20220407051947/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17attorneys.html?ref=washington | access-date = 2008-06-19 | archive-date= 2022-04-07 }}</ref> | |||
====Related USA Patriot Act provision==== | |||
Another change to the laws governing the appointment of U.S. Attorneys concerned the residency requirements. The Patriot Act re-authorization included a provision that allowed U.S. Attorneys to reside outside of their appointed state. ] authored the change in the law. He held two positions at the same time, the U.S. Attorney for Montana, and the Acting Associate Attorney General while residing in Washington. D.C. Senator ] (],]) called for Mercer to resign.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
|accessdate=2007-05-27 |date=] |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050202353.html | |||
|title=Tester Calls on Montana U.S. Attorney to Resign |first=Paul |last=Kane |publisher=The Washington Post}} | |||
</ref> In the summer of 2007, Mercer resigned from his Acting Associate Attorney General office, and withdrew his presidential nomination for the same office, and returned to Montana to his other position, U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana. | |||
===Inspector General Report and special prosecutor=== | |||
===Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys under previous administrations=== | |||
On September 29, 2008 the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) released a report on the matter that found most of the firings were politically motivated and improper. The next day Attorney General ] appointed ] as special prosecutor to decide whether criminal charges should be brought against Gonzales and other officials involved in the firings.<ref name="IHT-09-29-2008" /> The IG's report contained "substantial evidence" that party politics drove a number of the firings, and IG ] said in a statement that Gonzales had "abdicated his responsibility to safeguard the integrity and independence of the department."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/v-print/story/53255.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120903151234/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/v-print/story/53255.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=2012-09-03 |title=Prosecutor to probe role of politics in attorney firings |publisher=Mcclatchydc.com |access-date=2011-04-17 }}</ref> The report itself stopped short of resolving questions about higher White House involvement in the matter, because of what it said were the refusal to cooperate of a number of key players, among them ], Senator ] and ] and because the White House refused to hand over its documents related to the firings.<ref>{{cite web|date=September 2006|title=An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006|url=https://www.justice.gov/opr/page/file/1206601/download|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-27|publisher=DOJ Inspector General|pages=356–7|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201004112805/https://www.justice.gov/opr/page/file/1206601/download |archive-date=2020-10-04 }}</ref> | |||
By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted.<ref name=doj20010314> | |||
{{cite press release |title= White House and Justice Department begin U.S. Attorney transition | |||
|publisher=Office of the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice |date=], ] |url=http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm}} | |||
</ref> The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party.<ref name='WP-Discuss-Gerson-2007-03-14'/><ref name=McClatchy20070313> | |||
{{cite news | title=Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys| publisher=McClatchy Newspapers | url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16897325.htm | date=], ]}} | |||
</ref><ref name='WP-Discuss-Gerson-2007-03-14'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Stuart M. | last=Gerson | coauthors= | title=Inside the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys Controversy | date=March 14, 2007 | publisher=Washington Post | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html | work =Washington Post Live Online (discussion transcript) | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-29 | language = }} | |||
</ref> | |||
On July 21, 2010, Dannehy concluded that "there was insufficient evidence to establish that persons knowingly made material false statements to or Congress or corruptly endeavored to obstruct justice"<ref>{{cite news | title=Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich | author=Weich | page=5| url=http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/conyers.dannehy.ola.resp.pdf}}</ref> and that no criminal charges would be filed against Sampson or Gonzales. | |||
A Department of Justice list noted that "in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys." Similarly, | |||
a Senate study noted that "Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years."<ref name=LAT20070323> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url=http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/25836/print | title=A history of replacing U.S. attorneys: The GOP says Clinton first politicized the Justice Department. But numbers show an older pattern | author=David G. Savage | publisher = Los Angeles Times | date=], ] |accessdate=2007-05-27}} | |||
</ref> | |||
==Replacement of the U.S. attorneys== | |||
In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint.<ref name='WP-Discuss-Gerson-2007-03-14'/><ref name=McClatchy20070313> | |||
] | |||
{{cite news | title=Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys| publisher=McClatchy Newspapers | url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16897325.htm | date=], ]}} | |||
] | |||
</ref> | |||
], Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice, noted in a ], ], e-mail to ]: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents ] and ] <u>did not</u> seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision" (underlining original).<ref>http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OAG12-22-NEW-.pdf Email from Kyle Sampson to Harriet Miers, January 9, 2006, House Judiciary Committee, p. 9 | |||
</ref> | |||
There is no precedent for a President to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle period of the presidential term in office.<ref name="NYT-Cohen-2007-02-26"> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26mon4.html | title=Why Have So Many U.S. Attorneys Been Fired? It Looks a Lot Like Politics | |||
| publisher=] | date=February 26, 2007 | first=Adam | last=Cohen | accessdate = 2007-03-12}} | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17627519/site/newsweek/ | title='Quite Unprecedented' | publisher=] | date=March 15, 2007 | first=Julie| last=Scelfo | accessdate = 2007-03-28}}</ref> | |||
===Initial planning=== | |||
The few examples of forced dismissals available are based on misconduct. | |||
On January 6, 2005, Colin Newman, an assistant in the White House counsels office, wrote to David Leitch stating, "] stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. 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.'". The email was then forwarded to Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.<ref name="Rove2005-2nd">{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-13|author1=David Johnston |author2=Eric Lipton |date=March 16, 2007 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/world/americas/16iht-rove.4930290.html?_r=1 | |||
The ] investigated the precedent of dismissing U.S. Attorneys over the 25 years 1981-2006 and identified 54 attorneys who did not serve their full 4-year term. Of these, only two were documented | |||
|title=Rove discussed firing U.S. attorneys earlier than he indicated, e-mails show |work=The New York Times}}</ref><ref name="Rove2005">{{cite news | author=Jan Crawford Greenberg | url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1 | title=E-Mails Show Rove's Role in U.S. Attorney Firings | work =] | date =2007-03-15}}</ref> | |||
involuntary dismissals: William Kennedy in 1982 and J. William Petro in 1984. Both were Reagan appointees. Kennedy was | |||
dismissed for "for asserting that the CIA had pressured DOJ to pressure him not to pursue a case," and Petro was dismissed for "disclosing information about an indictment."<ref name="dismissal history"> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url=http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/USAttorneys/ServingLessThan4Years.pdf | title=U.S. Attorneys Who Have Served Less Than Four-year Terms |publisher=Congressional Research Service |date=February 22, 2007 | accessdate = 2007-03-15}} | |||
</ref> | |||
<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url= http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208046.htm | title= CRS: Most US Attorneys Serve Full Terms | publisher= About.com |date=February 22, 2007 | first= Kathy | |||
| last= Gill | accessdate = 2007-05-27}} | |||
</ref> | |||
However, all of the U.S. Attorneys dismissed in 2006 were in office longer than four years, and appointments lasting into a President's second term were beyond the scope of the study.<ref name="presidential nominations"> | |||
{{cite web | url=http://thomas.loc.gov/home/nomis.html | title=United States Presidential Nominations | | publisher=United States Congress | date= | first= | last= | accessdate=2007-03-18}} | |||
</ref><ref name="released e-mails"> | |||
{{cite web | url=http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/DOJ200703132.pdf | title=Released E-mails regarding firing of USAs | | publisher=Wall Street Journal | date= | first= |last= |accessdate=2007-03-18}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Before 1981, ] replaced U.S. Attorney ] at the request of Democratic Representative ]. Marston had been investigating corruption charges against Eilberg and ], another Democratic Representative.<ref name="Cleaning house"> | |||
{{cite news | url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912155,00.html?promoid=googlep/ | title=Cleaning House| publisher=] | date= Sep. 25, 1978 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2007-03-13}} | |||
</ref> | |||
The probe continued after the attorney was replaced, however, and Eilberg lost his 1978 reelection bid. Eilberg was eventually sentenced to five years probation and a $10,000 fine,<ref> | |||
''Blog of Death''. April 11, 2004. Retrieved April 15, 2007. | |||
</ref><ref name="Cleaning house"/> | |||
and Flood was ] for bribery by ].<ref> | |||
Censure Citations (Provided by Lexis/Nexis.) | |||
</ref> | |||
In reply, Sampson, then Department of Justice counsel to Attorney General ], wrote that it would be "weird to ask them to leave before completing at least a 4-year term", that they "would like to replace 15–20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys" and that the rest "are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc."<ref name="Rove2005"/> | |||
== Administration planning to replace U.S. Attorneys== | |||
<!--]--> | |||
]]] | |||
In January 2005, deputy White House chief of staff ] asked deputy counsel David Leitch "how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. 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."<ref name="Rove2005"> | |||
{{cite news | author=Jan Crawford Greenberg | url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1 | title=E-Mails Show Rove's Role in U.S. Attorney Firings | publisher =] | date =March 15, 2007}} | |||
</ref> | |||
In reply, ], then Department of Justice counsel to Attorney General ], wrote that it would be "weird to ask them to leave before completing at least a 4-year term", that they "would like to replace 15–20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys" and that the rest "are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc."<ref name="Rove2005"/> | |||
The White House at one time suggested that the plan for dismissals came from White House counsel ], who left the White House in January 2007 before the dismissal received public attention.<ref name="Eggen-Solomon20070313"> | |||
{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-13 | |||
|author=Eggen, Dan |coauthor=John Solomon |date=], ] |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html | |||
|title=Firings Had Genesis in White House Ex-Counsel Miers First Suggested Dismissing Prosecutors 2 Years Ago, Documents Show |work=Washington Post|page=Page A01}} | |||
</ref> | |||
In March 2005, Sampson | |||
In February 2005, Sampson became Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to ] ]. | |||
<blockquote>came up with a checklist. He rated each of the U.S. Attorneys with criteria that appeared to value political allegiance as much as job performance. He recommended retaining 'strong U.S. Attorneys who have ... exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.' He suggested 'removing weak U.S. Attorneys who have ... chafed against Administration initiatives'.<ref name="LAtimes031407"> | |||
{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-mar-14-na-emails14-story.html | title=E-mails detail White House plans to oust U.S. attorneys | newspaper=] | date= 2007-03-14 | first=Richard A. | last= Serrano | access-date = 2007-05-21}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
Sampson wrote in January 2006 to Miers that he recommended that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. attorneys, and that by limiting the number of attorneys "targeted for removal and replacement" it would "mitigat the shock to the system that would result from an across-the-board firing".<ref name="Eggen-Solomon20070313">{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-13|author=Eggen, Dan |author2=John Solomon |date=March 13, 2007 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html|title=Firings Had Genesis in White House Ex-Counsel Miers First Suggested Dismissing Prosecutors 2 Years Ago, Documents Show |newspaper=The Washington Post|page=Page A01}}</ref> | |||
In March 2005, Sampson "came up with a checklist. He rated each of the U.S. attorneys with criteria that appeared to value political allegiance as much as job performance. He recommended retaining 'strong U.S. Attorneys who have... exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.' He suggested 'removing weak U.S. Attorneys who have... chafed against Administration initiatives'".<ref name="LAtimes031407"> | |||
{{cite news | title=E-mails detail White House plans to oust U.S. attorneys | publisher=] | date= March 14, 2007 | first=Richard A. | last= Serrano | accessdate = 2007-05-21}} | |||
</ref> | |||
On February 12, 2006, ] sent a spreadsheet of each U.S. attorney's political activities and memberships in conservative political groups to senior Administration officials, with the comment "This is the chart that the AG requested".<ref name="Jordan20070413">{{cite news|access-date=2007-05-21 |author=Jordan, Laura Jakes |date=April 13, 2007 |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3039829 |publisher=ABC News (AP) |title=Agency weighed prosecutors' politics |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080616084406/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3039829 |archive-date=June 16, 2008 }}</ref> | |||
In September 2005, Sampson became Gonzales's Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice. | |||
Sampson strongly urged using changes to the law governing U.S. attorney appointments to bypass Congressional confirmation, writing in a September 17, 2006 memo to Miers: | |||
Sampson wrote in January 2006 to Miers that he recommended that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys, and that by limiting the number of attorneys "targeted for removal and replacement" it would "mitigat the shock to the system that would result from an across-the-board firing."<ref name="Eggen-Solomon20070313"> | |||
{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-13 | |||
|author=Eggen, Dan |coauthor=John Solomon |date=], ] |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html | |||
|title=Firings Had Genesis in White House Ex-Counsel Miers First Suggested Dismissing Prosecutors 2 Years Ago, Documents Show |work=Washington Post|page=Page A01}} | |||
</ref> | |||
<blockquote>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 ... 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.<ref name="Eggen-Solomon20070313"/></blockquote> | |||
On ], ], ] sent a spreadsheet of each U.S. Attorney's political activities and memberships in conservative political groups, in an email to senior Administration officials, with the comment "This is the chart that the AG requested".<ref name="Jordan20070413"> | |||
{{cite news | |||
|accessdate=2007-05-21 |author=Jordan, Laura Jakes |date=], ] |url= http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3039829 |publisher = ABC News (AP) |title=Agency weighed prosecutors' politics}} | |||
</ref> | |||
===Implementation: the U.S. attorney removal list=== | |||
(In late February 2006, the White House and the Senate had a minor dispute over the nomination of a U.S. Attorney to Utah. The White House favored Kyle Sampson for the position, while Senator ] (], ]) favored Brett Tolman. Tolman was eventually nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate.<ref> | |||
In October 2006, President ] told Alberto Gonzales that he had received complaints that some U.S. attorneys had not pursued certain voter-fraud investigations. The complaints came from Republican officials, who demanded fraud investigations into a number of Democratic campaigns.<ref name="Eggen-Solomon20070313"/> | |||
{{cite news | |||
|accessdate=2007-05-22 |author= The Associated Press |date=], ] |url= http://www.harktheherald.com/content/view/166296/ |publisher = The Daily Herald |title=Hatch, White House at odds over U.S. attorney nomination}} | |||
</ref>) | |||
According to '']'', "Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff, developed the list of eight prosecutors to be fired last October—with input from the White House".<ref>{{cite magazine | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/page/2/ | title=Fuel to the Firings | magazine=] | date=2007-03-19| first=Michael | last=Isikoff | access-date = 2007-03-12 | url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070314183909/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/page/2/ <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = 2007-03-14}}</ref> | |||
Sampson strongly urged using changes to the law governing U.S. Attorney appointments to bypass Congressional confirmation, writing in a ], ] memo to ]: "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...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."<ref name="Eggen-Solomon20070313"> | |||
{{cite news | |||
|accessdate=2007-03-13 |author=Eggen, Dan and John Solomon |date=], ] |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html |title=Firings Had Genesis in White House Ex-Counsel Miers First Suggested Dismissing Prosecutors 2 Years Ago, Documents Show |work=Washington Post|page=Page A01}} | |||
</ref> | |||
On November 27, 2006, Gonzales met with senior advisers to discuss the plan.<ref name="NYtimes0324">{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/washington/24attorney.html | title=Gonzales Met With Advisors on Ouster Plan| newspaper=The New York Times | date= 2007-03-24 | first=David and Eric Lipton | last= Johnston | access-date = 2007-03-24}}</ref> The Justice Department did not receive White House approval for the firings until early December. As late as December 2, Sampson had written to ] that the Justice Department was "till waiting for green light from White House" with regards to the firing. Deputy White House Counsel ] responded on December 4, 2006, saying, "We're a go for the U.S. Atty plan ... , political, communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."<ref name=LaraJakesJordan>{{cite news|author=Lara Jakes Jordan |agency=Associated Press |title=Gonzales: Prosecutors firings mishandled |date=March 13, 2007}}</ref> | |||
In October 2006, ] told ] that he had received complaints that some of the U.S. Attorneys had not pursued certain voter-fraud investigations.<ref name="Eggen-Solomon20070313"> | |||
{{cite news | author=Dan Eggen | coauthors=John Solomon | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html |title=Firings Had Genesis in White House: Ex-Counsel Miers First Suggested Dismissing Prosecutors 2 Years Ago, Documents Show | publisher=] | date=March 13, 2007 | page=A01}}</ref> | |||
The complaints came from Republican officials, who demanded fraud investigations into a number of Democratic campaigns. The ] was forthcoming (November) and Republicans were concerned about losing Congressional seats to Democrats. (The election in fact did overturn Congressional control to the Democratic Party.) | |||
On December 7, 2006, Justice Department official ] informed seven U.S. attorneys that they were being dismissed.<ref name=Hartley20070321>{{cite magazine|first=Allegra |last=Hartley |title=Timeline: How the U.S. Attorneys Were Fired |magazine=U.S. News & World Report |date=2007-03-21 |access-date=2007-03-26 |url=https://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070321/21attorneys-timeline.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070528160426/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070321/21attorneys-timeline.htm |archive-date=May 28, 2007 }}</ref> | |||
Furthermore, "The documents show that in one case, officials were eager to free up the prosecutor’s slot in Little Rock, Ark., so it could be filled by Timothy Griffin, a GOP operative close to White House political guru ] — at all costs."<ref name="LAtimes031407"/> | |||
According to '']'', "], Gonzales's chief of staff, developed the list of eight prosecutors to be fired last October—with input from the White House."<ref> | |||
{{cite news | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/page/2/ | title=Fuel to the Firings | publisher=] | date=March 19, 2007| first=Michael | last=Isikoff | accessdate = 2007-03-12}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Although seven attorneys were dismissed on December 7, 2006, subsequent disclosures show that three or more additional attorneys were dismissed under similar circumstances between 2005 and 2006.<ref name="boston">{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/06/list_of_8_dismissed_us_prosecutors/ |title=List of 8 dismissed U.S. prosecutors |date=March 6, 2007 |agency=Associated Press }}</ref> U.S. Attorney ] in Arkansas had been informed in June 2006 that he was to be replaced, and he resigned, effective December 20, 2006, several days after the public announcement of the appointment of his successor ].<ref> | |||
On ], ], Sampson sent an e-mail <ref name="Nov. 21, 2006 E-mail"> | |||
{{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080626074157/http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Chair-Cummins070430.pdf |date=June 26, 2008 }} (no date). ''United States House Committee on the Judiciary'' Retrieved May 18, 2007. (Written responses by Bud Cummins to committee interrogatories, post-hearing.)</ref> | |||
{{cite news |url=http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/03/28/the-e-mail-placing-gonzales-at-doj-meeting-to-discuss-us-attorney-firings/ |title=E-Mail Placing Gonzales at DOJ Meeting To Discuss U.S. Attorney Firings |publisher=Gonzales Watch |date=], ] |author=Gonzales Watch }} | |||
{{Dismissed attorneys table}} | |||
</ref> | |||
David Iglesias (R) believes he was removed from office at the behest of two New Mexico Republican congressmen when he refused to prosecute state Democratic senators before the November 2006 election.<ref>Taylor, Marisa. "Political interference is alleged in the sacking of a U.S. attorney", McClatchy Newspapers - February 28, 2007</ref> | |||
to an assistant in the Attorney General's office, scheduling a meeting in Gonzales' conference room with senior Justice Department advisors to discuss "U.S. Attorney Appointments." Those asked to be scheduled in the meeting included Gonzales, Sampson, ], Deputy Attorney General ], Associated Deputy A.G. William Moschella, ], and ]. On ], ], Gonzales met with senior advisors to discuss the plan.<ref name="NYtimes0324"> | |||
{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/washington/24attorney.html | title=Gonzales Met With Advisors on Ouster Plan| publisher=] | date= March 24, 2007 | first=David and Eric Lipton | last= Johnston | accessdate = 2007-03-24}}</ref> | |||
The Justice Department did not receive White House approval for the firings until early December. As late as December 2, Sampson had written to ] that the Justice department was "till waiting for green light from White House" with regards to the firing. Deputy White House counsel ] responded on ], ], stating that "We're a go for the U.S. Atty plan... , political, communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."<ref name=LaraJakesJordan> | |||
{{cite news | |||
|accessdate=2007-03-13 |author=Lara Jakes Jordan |publisher=Associated Press |title=Gonzales: Prosecutors firings mishandled |date=], ]}} | |||
</ref> | |||
] (R) Though described as "loyal to the Bush administration," he was allegedly fired for the possible controversy that negative job performance evaluations might cause if they were released.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Dolan |first1=Maura |title=Bush loyalist was added to purge list late |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-bush-loyalist/147483996/ |work=Los Angeles Times |date=March 22, 2007 |pages=B1, B9}} </ref> | |||
On ], ], Justice Department official ] informed seven U.S. Attorneys that they were being dismissed.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | first = Allegra | last = Hartley | title = Timeline: How the U.S. Attorneys Were Fired | publisher = US News & World Report | date = ] | accessdate = 2007-03-26 | url = http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070321/21attorneys-timeline.htm }} | |||
</ref> | |||
] (R) Was given a positive job evaluation 7 months before he was fired. After a close Washington governor's race resulted in a Democratic victory, local Republicans criticized McKay for not investigating allegations of voter fraud.<ref>David Bowermaster (February 7, 2007). " {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070516171505/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003562075_mckay08m.html |date=2007-05-16 }}," ''Seattle Times''</ref> | |||
Although seven attorneys were dismissed on ], ], subsequent disclosures show that three or more additional attorneys were dismissed under similar circumstances between 2005-2006.<ref name="boston"> | |||
{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/06/list_of_8_dismissed_us_prosecutors/ |title=List of 8 dismissed U.S. prosecutors |publisher=Associated Press |date=], ] |author=Associated Press }} | |||
</ref> U.S. Attorney ] in Arkansas had been informed in June 2006 that he was to be replaced, and he resigned, effective ], ], several days after the public announcement of the appointment of his successor ].<ref> | |||
(no date). ''United States House Committee on the Judiciary'' Retrieved May 18, 2007. (Written responses by Bud Cummins to committee interrogatories, post-hearing.) | |||
</ref> | |||
{{Dismissed attorneys table}} | |||
] (R) U.S. Attorney for Arizona, was given a positive job performance evaluation before he was dismissed. He may have been fired because he had started a corruption investigation into Representative ] (R-AZ).<ref>Blumenthal, Max (2007-03-20). "", ''The Nation'', Retrieved 2007-03-21.</ref> In September 2006, it became clear that Charlton had launched an investigation of Renzi over a land-swap deal. Sampson subsequently included Charlton on a list of U.S. attorneys "we now should consider pushing out."<ref>{{cite news | first = Ron | last = Hutcheson | title = Emails detail plans for firing U.S. attorneys | publisher = McClatchy Newspapers | date = 2007-03-13 | access-date = 2007-03-14 | url = http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16897082.htm }}</ref> Sampson made the comment in a Sept. 13, 2006, letter to then-White House Counsel ].<ref name="Blumenthal">{{cite magazine|url=https://www.thenation.com/article/porn-plot-against-prosecutors/|title=The Porn Plot Against Prosecutors|first1=Max|last1=Blumenthal|access-date=2019-03-22|date=2007-03-20|magazine=]|archive-date=2019-03-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322233518/https://www.thenation.com/article/porn-plot-against-prosecutors/|url-status=dead}}</ref> | |||
== Reactions and congressional investigation == | |||
{{main|Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline}} | |||
] (R) U.S. Attorney for California, oversaw the investigation and conviction of Rep. ] (R-CA) for corruption in military contracting.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20070121/news_1n21lam.html|title=Lam's Legacy|date=January 21, 2007|work=San Diego Union-Tribune|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115193512/http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20070121/news_1n21lam.html |access-date=1 February 2017|archive-date=2018-11-15 }}</ref> Congressman ] complained that Lam was not prosecuting illegal border crossings aggressively enough.<ref>{{cite news | title=Letter from Justice Department to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Regarding Performance of Carol Lam | author=U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs| publisher=ThinkProgress.org | date= 2007-03-06 | url=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/doj-lam/?resultpage=1&| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070323090648/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/doj-lam/?resultpage=1&| url-status=dead| archive-date=2007-03-23}}</ref> On December 7, 2006, ], Director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, called Lam and notified her that she must resign no later than January 31, 2007. Battle instructed Lam to explain that she had decided to pursue other opportunities.<ref name="judiciary.house.gov">{{Cite web |url=http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Chair-Lam070430.pdf |title=Lam's responses to questions from House Judiciary Committee |access-date=2019-03-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080626074215/http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Chair-Lam070430.pdf |archive-date=2008-06-26 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Battle insisted that Lam had to depart in weeks, not months, and these orders were "coming from the very highest levels of government". Lam submitted her resignation January 16, 2007, effective February 15.<ref name="judiciary.house.gov"/> | |||
===January 2007: Initial reaction=== | |||
The initial reaction was from the senators of the affected states. The ] convened for the ] on ] with its new ] majority. The ] has oversight over the ]. In a letter to Gonzales on ], ] Senators ] (], ]) and ] (], ]; Chair of the Committee) of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed concern that the confirmation process for U.S. attorneys would be bypassed, and on January 11, they, together with ] (], ]), introduced legislation "to prevent circumvention of the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to confirm U.S. Attorneys," called ], {{USBill|110|S|214}} and {{USBill|110|H|580}}. Feinstein issued a press release about the bill.<ref> | |||
(Press Release). ''Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein.'' January 11, 2007. Retrieved April 16, 2007.</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070112-9999-1n12lam.html | |||
|author=Thornton, Kelly and Onell R. Soto | |||
|title=Job performance said to be behind White House firing | |||
|work=]'' | |||
|date=], ]}} | |||
</ref><ref name=Marosi> | |||
{{cite news |author=Marosi, Richard |title=U.S. prosecutors quit in San Diego, S.F. |work=] |date=], ]}} | |||
</ref> | |||
The initial concern was about the Patriot Act and the confirmation process, rather than the politicization of the U.S. Attorneys that later dominated the controversy. | |||
] (R) U.S. Attorney for Nevada was investigating Nevada Governor ] (R) for bribery, when he was fired without explanation after seven years because of a vague sense that a "stronger leader" was needed. His loyalty to President Bush was questioned by Sampson.<ref></ref><ref name="theatlantic.com">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/a-us-attorneys-story/307416/|title = A U.S. Attorney's Story|website = ]|date = 20 April 2009| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230321233348/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/a-us-attorneys-story/307416/ | archive-date=2023-03-21 }}</ref><ref name="NY Times">Steinhauer, Jennifer. (2007-05-30) . Select.nytimes.com. Retrieved on 2011-01-09.</ref><ref name="lvrj.com">. Lvrj.com. Retrieved on 2011-01-09.</ref> | |||
The earliest reporting of this affair was by ] and his associates on Marshall's ] ].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/how_talkingpointsmemo_beat_the.php | publisher=] | title=How TalkingPointsMemo Beat the Big Boys on the U.S. Attorney Story | last=McLeary | first=Paul | date=], ] | accessdate=2007-09-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003712141 | publisher=] | title=Slain Editor Bailey Among George Polk Award Winners | last=Strupp | first=Joe | authorlink=Joe Strupp | date=], ] | accessdate=2008-02-19}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9083501 | publisher=] | title=Talking Points Site Kept Attorneys Story Alive | last=Smith | first=Robert | date=], ], accessdate=2007-05-18}}</ref> | |||
] (R) U.S. Attorney for Michigan was given a positive job evaluation in 2005, and told she was being removed to "make way" for another individual.<ref>Lipton, Eric (March 23, 2007). "", ''The New York Times'', Retrieved 2007-03-23.</ref> On March 23, 2007, ''The New York Times'' reported that Chiara was told by a senior Justice Department official that she was being removed to make way for a new attorney that the Bush administration wanted to groom. "To say it was about politics may not be pleasant, but at least it is truthful," Chiara said. "Poor performance was not a truthful explanation."<ref name=Lipton20070323>{{cite web|access-date=2007-03-23 | |||
Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on ]. He assured the committee that he did not intend to bypass the confirmation process and denied the firings were politically motivated.<ref> | |||
|author=Lipton, Eric |work=The New York Times |date=March 23, 2007 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/washington/23chiara.html?ref=washington&pagewanted=print | |||
{{cite news | |||
|title=U.S. Attorney in Michigan Disputes Reason for Removal}}</ref><ref name=AP-resign>{{cite news | title=Michigan U.S. attorney announces resignation | date=March 27, 2007 | publisher=AP | url=http://www.buffalolawjournal.com/article_view.asp?IDNO=31200719 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070312085425/http://www.buffalolawjournal.com/article_view.asp?IDNO=31200719 | archive-date=March 12, 2007 }}</ref> | |||
| publisher=] | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801880.html | date=January 19, 2007 | author=Dan Eggen | title=Prosecutor Firings Not Political, Gonzales Says | accessdate=2007-04-16}} | |||
</ref> | |||
] (R) had been pressed to bring a civil suit against Missouri Secretary of State ] (D) for allegedly failing to crack down on voting fraud.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070531nj1.htm |title=The Scales Of Justice |publisher=NATIONAL JOURNAL - News.nationaljournal.com |date=2007-05-31 |access-date=2011-04-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070604164859/http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070531nj1.htm |archive-date=2007-06-04 }}</ref> In January 2006, Graves was asked to step down from his job by ], then Director of the Justice department's ].<ref name="goldsteineggen">Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen. . washingtonpost.com, May 10, 2007; accessed April 24, 2015/</ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070809015125/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mow/news2006/graves.resign.pdf |date=2007-08-09 }}, usdoj.gov, March 10, 2006; retrieved May 8, 2007.</ref> Graves had clashed with the Department of Justice's civil rights division over a federal lawsuit involving Missouri's voter rolls. The department was pushing for a lawsuit against Missouri, accusing the state of failing to eliminate ineligible people from voter rolls. Graves refused to sign off on the lawsuit, which was subsequently authorized by Graves' successor, ] (R).<ref name="goldsteineggen"/><ref>Greg Gordon (May 4, 2007). , kansascity.com; accessed April 24, 2015.</ref> ] filed a complaint against Bond over his role in ousting Graves.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/14724|title=Group files ethics complaint against Bond|last=Helling|first=Dave|work=] Prime Buzz|date=September 29, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081001182425/http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node%2F14724|archive-date=October 1, 2008|access-date=February 21, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=blog|date=February 2017}} | |||
On ] ], in an opinion piece for the ''Las Vegas Review-Journal'', Jane Ann Morrison reported that "A GOP source that the decision to remove U.S. attorneys, primarily in the West, was part of a plan to 'give somebody else that experience' to build up the back bench of Republicans by giving them high-profile jobs."<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
|publisher=Las Vegas Review-Journal | url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Jan-18-Thu-2007/news/12044953.html | date=January 18, 2007 | author=Jane Ann Morrison | title=Bush administration's ouster of U.S. attorneys an insulting injustice | accessdate=2007-04-16}} | |||
</ref> | |||
], writing for ] noted that, "The newly appointed U.S. attorneys all have impressive legal credentials, but most of them have few, if any, ties to the communities they've been appointed to serve, and some have had little experience as prosecutors. The nine recent appointees identified held high-level White House or Justice Department jobs, and most of them were handpicked by Gonzales..." "Being named a U.S. attorney 'has become a prize for doing the bidding of the White House or administration,' said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who is a professor at the ] in ]."<ref> | |||
{{cite news | date=January 26, 2007 | title=Gonzales appoints political loyalists into vacant U.S. attorneys slots | author=Marisa Taylor |Author2=Greg Gordon | publisher=McClatchy Newspapers | url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16555903.htm}} | |||
</ref> | |||
] (R) allegedly was asked to leave so ], an aide to Karl Rove, could have his job.<ref name=Johnson20070206/> Deputy Attorney General ] testified that Cummins was removed for no reason except to install a former aide to ]: 37-year-old Tim Griffin, a former opposition research director for the ].<ref> | |||
===February 2007: The controversy blossoms=== | |||
{{cite news | url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-06-prosecutor-rove-aide_x.htm | title=Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job |date=2007-02-06 | newspaper=] | author=Kevin Johnson}} | |||
The concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein and Pryor were followed up by hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee called by ] (], ]) in February.<ref> | |||
</ref><ref name=NYTimes2009-08-11> | |||
Hearing on "Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?" ''United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary'' January 30, 2007. Retrieved April 16, 2007.</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news | {{cite news | ||
| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/politics/12firings.html?em | |||
| date=March 31, 2007 | title=Schumer again takes aim on White House | |||
| title=E-Mail Reveals Rove's Key Role in '06 Dismissals | |||
| author=Tom Brune | publisher=Newsday.com }} | |||
| date=2009-08-11 | |||
</ref> | |||
| author=Eric Lichtblau, Eric Lipton | |||
Deputy Attorney General ] testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on ]. He underscored that the seven were fired for job performance issues, and not political considerations. In subsequent closed-door testimony on ], ] to the committee, McNulty said that days after the February hearing, he learned that White House officials had not revealed to him White House influence and discussions on creating the list.<ref name='NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15'> | |||
| work=] | |||
{{cite news | first=David | last=Johnston | coauthors= | title=Gonzales’s Deputy Quits Justice Department | date=May 15, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/washington/15attorney.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fU%2fUnited%20States%20Attorneys | work =New York Times | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-17 | language = }} | |||
| access-date=2009-08-14 | |||
</ref><ref name='McClatchy-Taylor_2007-05-15'> | |||
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=White House Is Reported to Be Linked to a Dismissal | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/washington/16attorneys.html | author=David Johnston |date=2007-02-16 | work=The New York Times}} | |||
{{cite news | first=Marisa | last=Taylor | coauthors= Margaret Talev | title=Former deputy attorney general official defends fired U.S. attorneys | date=May 3, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17174983.htm | work =McClatchy Newspapers | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-15 | language = }} | |||
</ref> Cummins told the ] "that Mike Elston, the deputy attorney general's top aide, threatened him with retaliation in a phone call if he went public."<ref> | |||
{{cite news | url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=atpxI2DuctG4&refer=us | title=Fired Prosecutor Says He Was Warned to Keep Quiet (Update2) | author=Robert Schmidt | date=2007-03-06 | publisher=Bloomberg News}}</ref> Emails show that Cummins passed on the warning to some of the other attorneys who were fired.<ref> | |||
{{cite web | |||
|url=http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt3-6070319.pdf | |||
|title=Archived copy | |||
|access-date=2007-05-16 | |||
|url-status=dead | |||
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070530222340/http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DOJDocsPt3-6070319.pdf | |||
|archive-date=2007-05-30 | |||
}} Emails release by the House Judiciary Committee, email of Feb 20, 2007, page 17 | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
McNulty in February called Senator Schumer by telephone to apologize for the inaccurate characterization of the firings.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17628142/page/1/ | publisher=MSNBC Meet the Press | date=March 18, 2007 |accessdate=2007-04-16 | title=MTP Transcript for Mar. 18, 2007 }} | |||
</ref> | |||
At least six of the seven had recently received outstanding job performance ratings. McNulty testified that ], the U.S. Attorney for Arkansas, was removed to install a former aide to ] and ] opposition research director, the 37-year-old ].<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-06-prosecutor-rove-aide_x.htm | title=Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job |date=February 6, 2007 | publisher=] | author=Kevin Johnson}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Cummins, apparently, "was ousted after ], the former White House counsel, intervened on behalf of Griffin."<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| title=White House Is Reported to Be Linked to a Dismissal | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/washington/16attorneys.html | author=David Johnston |date=February 16, 2007 | publisher=]}} | |||
</ref><ref name='NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15'>{{cite news | first=David | last=Johnston | coauthors= | title=Deputy Attorney General Resigns His Post | date=May 12, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/washington/15cnd-attorneys.html?hp | work =New York Times | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-15 | language = }} | |||
</ref> | |||
However, McNulty's testimony that the attorneys were fired for "performance related issues" caused the attorneys to come forward in protest.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-08-Thu-2007/news/12466253.html |author=Adrienne Packer |date=February 8, 2007 | |||
| publisher=Las Vegas Review Journal |title=U.S. attorney rebuts claim performance led to firing|accessdate=2007-04-16}} | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801867.html | publisher=] | |||
| title=Fired Prosecutor Disputes Justice Dept. Allegation |date=February 9, 2007 | accessdate=2007-04-16 | author= Dan Eggen}} | |||
</ref><ref name='NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15'>{{cite news | first=David | last=Johnston | coauthors= | title=Deputy Attorney General Resigns His Post | date=May 12, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/washington/15cnd-attorneys.html?hp | work =New York Times | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-15 | language = }} | |||
</ref> | |||
Indeed, there is some evidence that the administration was concerned about the attorneys going public with complaints prior to this time.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/page/1 | title=Fuel to the Firings: Eight U.S. attorneys lost their jobs. Now investigators are assessing if the dismissals were politically motivated | date=March 19, 2007 | accessdate=2007-04-16 | author=Michael Isikoff | |||
| publisher=]}} | |||
</ref> | |||
] (R) U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. In 2005 ], Chairman of the ], complained about Iglesias to a White House aide for ], asking that Iglesias be removed. Weh was dissatisfied with Iglesias due in part to his failure to indict New Mexico State Senator ] (D) on fraud and conspiracy charges. Then in 2006 Rove personally told Weh "He's gone."<ref name="RoveGone"> - ] - March 11, 2007</ref> | |||
'']'' reported: "at least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department official knowledgeable about their cases."<ref> | |||
{{cite news | title= Inside Bush's prosecutor purge | author=Mark Follman |date=February 28, 2007 | url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/28/attorneys/}} | |||
</ref> | |||
] (R) U.S. Attorney for Maryland, stated in March 2007 that he was ousted because of political pressure over public corruption investigations into the administration of then-Gov. ] Jr.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602330.html?nav=rss_email/components | title=Justice Admits U.S. Attorney Was Forced Out| newspaper=The Washington Post | date= March 7, 2007 | first=Eric | last=Rich | access-date = 2006-03-07}}</ref> | |||
These proceedings were politically charged. At one point Senator Schumer was criticized by ] (], ]), also on the Judiciary Committee, for having a conflict of interest by being a lead investigator of the affair while also chairing the ]; such criticism was short-lived.<ref> | |||
{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259448,00.html|last=|first=|title=Transcript: Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter on 'FNS'|work=]|date=2007-03-19|accessdate=2007-04-11}}</ref><ref> | |||
===Administration testimony contradicted by documents=== | |||
{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264836,00.html|title=Transcript: Newt Gingrich, Senator Charles Schumer on 'FNS'|work=]|date=2007-04--08|accessdate=2007-04-11}} | |||
{{See also|Bush White House e-mail controversy}} | |||
Members of Congress investigating the dismissals found that ] from Department of Justice officials appeared to be contradicted by internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remained unclear despite hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and senior Department of Justice staff in congressional committee hearings.<ref> | |||
{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-20 |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dems-strategy-on-attorneys-takes-shape/ |title=Dems' Strategy On Attorneys Takes Shape |author=Mike Allen |date=2007-03-20 | work=]}} | |||
</ref><ref name="NYT-Lipton-2007-05-03">{{cite news | first=Eric | last=Lipton |author2=David Johnston | title=Justice Department announces inquiry into its hiring practices | date=2007-05-03 | url =https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/washington/03attorneys.html | work =The New York Times | pages =A18 | access-date = 2007-05-09 }} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
==Reactions and congressional investigation== | |||
===March 2007: Transition to scandal=== | |||
{{main|Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline|Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings}} | |||
====Battle resignation==== | |||
On ], ] effective ], ] resigned his position of Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA).<ref> | |||
{{cite news | title=Messenger in Prosecutors' Firings Quits | author=David Johnston | date=March 6, 2007 | publisher=] | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06inquire.html?ex=1330837200&en=682ea9a6d2069de0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss}}</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite web | url = http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070321/21attorneys-timeline.htm | |||
| title = Timeline: How the U.S. Attorneys Were Fired | first = Allegra | last = Hartley | work = ] | accessdate = 2007-04-07 }} | |||
</ref> | |||
===Initial reaction=== | |||
On ], ], Gonzales responded to the controversy in an op-ed in '']'' in which he said, "To be clear, was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management — what have been referred to broadly as "performance-related" reasons — that seven U.S. attorneys were asked to resign last December.... We have never asked a U.S. attorney to resign in an effort to retaliate against him or her or to inappropriately interfere with a public ] case (or any other type of case, for that matter). Like me, U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and we all serve at the pleasure of the president. If U.S. attorneys are not executing their responsibilities in a manner that furthers the management and policy goals of departmental leadership, it is appropriate that they be replaced...While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost my confidence. I hope that this episode ultimately will be recognized for what it is: an overblown personnel matter."<ref> | |||
The initial reaction was from the senators of the affected states. In a letter to Gonzales on January 9, 2007, Senators ] (], California) and ] (], ]; Chair of the Committee) of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed concern that the confirmation process for U.S. attorneys would be bypassed, and on January 11, they, together with ] (], ]), introduced legislation "to prevent circumvention of the Senate's constitutional prerogative to confirm U.S. Attorneys", called Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, {{USBill|110|S|214}} and {{USBill|110|H|580}}.<ref> | |||
Alberto Gonzales USA Today, March 6, 2007 | |||
(Press Release). ''Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein.'' January 11, 2007. Retrieved January 7, 2014.</ref> | |||
</ref> | |||
<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070112-9999-1n12lam.html|author1=Thornton, Kelly|author2= Onell R. Soto|title=Job performance said to be behind White House firing|newspaper=]|date=January 12, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070518060804/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070112-9999-1n12lam.html|archive-date=2007-05-18}}</ref> | |||
The initial concern was about the USA PATRIOT Act and the confirmation process, rather than the politicization of the U.S. attorneys. | |||
Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 18. He assured the committee that he did not intend to bypass the confirmation process and denied the firings were politically motivated.<ref>{{cite news | newspaper=The Washington Post | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801880.html | date=2007-01-19 | author=Dan Eggen | title=Prosecutor Firings Not Political, Gonzales Says | access-date=2007-04-16}}</ref> | |||
====Sampson resignation==== | |||
On ], ], Sampson resigned from the Department of Justice.<ref name=LaraJakesJordan> | |||
{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-13 | |||
|author=Lara Jakes Jordan |publisher=Associated Press |title= Gonzales: Prosecutors firings mishandled | |||
|date=], ]}} | |||
</ref> | |||
On ], Gonzales stated in a news conference that he accepted responsibility for mistakes made in the dismissal and rejected calls for his resignation that Democratic members of Congress had been making. He also stood by his decision to dismiss the attorneys "I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision," Gonzales said.<ref name=LaraJakesJordan /> | |||
Gonzales admitted that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials.<ref> | |||
{{cite press release |date=], ] |accessdate=2007-03-18 |http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2007/ag_speech_070313.html |title=Transcript of Media Availability With Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales |publisher=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-13 |work=New York Post |url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03142007/news/nationalnews/prosecutor_firings_are_my_bad___gonzales_nationalnews_.htm |publisher=AP | date=], ] | title=Prosecutor Firings Are My Bad — Gonzales}} | |||
</ref> | |||
The concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein and Pryor were followed up by hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee called by ] (], New York) in February.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070228215314/http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2516 |date=February 28, 2007 }} Hearing on "Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?" ''United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary'' January 30, 2007. Retrieved April 16, 2007. </ref><ref>{{cite news| date=2007-03-31 | title=Schumer again takes aim on White House| author=Tom Brune | newspaper=Newsday.com }}</ref> Deputy Attorney General ] testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6. He said that the seven were fired for job performance issues and not political considerations; these statements led several of the dismissed attorneys, who had been previously silent, to come forward with questions about their dismissals, partially because their performance reviews prior to their dismissal had been highly favorable.<ref name="NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15"/> | |||
Gonzales lost more support when records subsequently challenged some of these statements at the ] press conference. At that press conference he stated: "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood." But DOJ records released on ] showed that on his ] schedule "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the ]."<ref> | |||
{{cite news | date=March 26, 2007 | title=White House backs AG as support wanes | author=Lara Jakes Jordan | publisher=Associated Press | url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/26/national/w074341D05.DTL}} | |||
</ref>. | |||
In subsequent closed-door testimony on April 27, 2007, to the committee, McNulty said that days after the February hearing, he learned that White House officials had not revealed to him White House influence and discussions on creating the list.<ref name="NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15">{{cite news | first=David | last=Johnston | title=Gonzales's Deputy Quits Justice Department | date=2007-05-15 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/washington/15attorney.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fU%2fUnited%20States%20Attorneys | work =The New York Times | access-date = 2007-05-17 }} | |||
Although the Department of Justice released 3,000 pages of its internal communications related to this issue, none of those documents discussed anything related to a performance review process for these attorneys before they were fired. Questions were also raised regarding the use of non governmental emails. For example, ], an aide to ] communicated with ] "concerning the appointment of ], a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released in March, 2007. For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the ], where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher."<ref name=WP-GSA-20070326> | |||
</ref><ref name="McClatchy-Taylor_2007-05-15">{{cite news | first=Marisa | last=Taylor |author2=Margaret Talev | title=Former deputy attorney general official defends fired U.S. attorneys | date=2007-05-03 | url =http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17174983.htm | work =McClatchy Newspapers | access-date = 2007-05-15 }}</ref> McNulty in February called Senator Schumer by telephone to apologize for the inaccurate characterization of the firings.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna17628142 | publisher=NBC News Meet the Press | date=2007-03-18 |access-date=2007-04-16 | title=MTP Transcript for Mar. 18, 2007 }}</ref> McNulty testified that ], the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, was removed to install a former aide to Karl Rove and ] opposition research director, ].<ref name=Johnson20070206>{{cite news| url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-06-prosecutor-rove-aide_x.htm | title=Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job |date=2007-02-06 | newspaper=USA Today | author=Kevin Johnson}}</ref> Cummins, apparently, "was ousted after ], the former White House counsel, intervened on behalf of Griffin".<ref name="NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15"/><ref>{{cite news | |||
{{cite news | title = GSA Chief Is Accused of Playing Politics: Doan Denies 'Improper' Use of Agency for GOP | author= Scott Higham |coauthors=Robert O'Harrow Jr. | publisher=] | date=March 26, 2007 |page=A01 |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032501048.html }} | |||
| title=White House Is Reported to Be Linked to a Dismissal | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/washington/16attorneys.html | author=David Johnston |date=2007-02-16 | newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref> | |||
</ref> | |||
McNulty's testimony that the attorneys were fired for "performance related issues" caused the attorneys to come forward in protest.<ref name="NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15"/><ref>{{cite news | |||
Sampson's replacement as the A.G's temporary chief of staff was U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, ], who soon initiates a DOJ inquiry into political nature of Goodling's hiring practices for non-political civil service staff. Rosenberg learned of the complaint of ], interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and his effort to hire a new career prosecutor in the fall of 2006. Taylor went around Monica Goodling, and demanded Sampson's approval to make the hire. The candidate, Seth Adam Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency had been serving as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office. Goodling judged Meinero too "liberal" and had declined to approve the hire.<ref name='WPost-Eggen-2007-05-23'> {{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | coauthors= Carol D. Leonnig | title=Officials Describe Interference by Former Gonzales Aide | date=May 23, 2007 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201601.html | work =Washington Post | pages =A04 | accessdate = 2007-05-23 | language = }} | |||
| url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-08-Thu-2007/news/12466253.html |author=Adrienne Packer |date=2007-02-08| newspaper=Las Vegas Review Journal |title=U.S. attorney rebuts claim performance led to firing|access-date=2007-04-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801867.html | newspaper=The Washington Post | |||
</ref> | |||
| title=Fired Prosecutor Disputes Justice Dept. Allegation |date=2007-02-09 | access-date=2007-04-16 | author= Dan Eggen}}</ref> There is some evidence that the administration was concerned about the attorneys' going public with complaints prior to this time.<ref>{{cite magazine| url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/page/1 | title=Fuel to the Firings: Eight U.S. attorneys lost their jobs. Now investigators are assessing if the dismissals were politically motivated | date=2007-03-19 | access-date=2007-04-16 | author=Michael Isikoff| magazine=] | url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070314191640/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/ |archive-date=March 14, 2007}}</ref> | |||
'']'' reported: "t least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department official knowledgeable about their cases."<ref>{{cite news | title= Inside Bush's prosecutor purge | author=Mark Follman |date=2007-02-28 | url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/28/attorneys/}}</ref> | |||
====Calls for Gonzales resignation==== | |||
On ], ], Senator ] (], ]) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Gonzales' resignation. Sununu cited not only the controversial firings but growing concern over the use of the ] and misuse of ] by the ].<ref name="WP-20070351"> | |||
{{cite news | title= GOP senator calls for Gonzales' head | author=Suzanne Malveaux, Dana Bash, Ed Henry and Terry Frieden | publisher=] | date=March 14, 2007 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801502.html}} | |||
</ref> | |||
By ], at least twenty-two Senators and seven Members of the House of Representatives — including Senators ] (], ]) and ] (], ])— had called for Gonzales' resignation.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | title= Sen. Pryor: Attorney General lied to the Senate | author=Dana Bash, Ed Henry, Terry Frieden and Suzanne Malveaux | publisher=] | date=March 15, 2007 | url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/fired.attorneys/index.html}} | |||
</ref> | |||
(See ] for further details.) | |||
===Further investigation and resignations=== | |||
====Executive Privilege claims==== | |||
] Chairman ] stated that Congress has the authority to ] Justice Department and White House officials including chief political advisor to the president ] and former White House counsel ].<ref name="WP-20070354"> | |||
{{cite news | title= Subpoenas target Justice; White House could be next| publisher=] | date=March 15, 2007 | url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/fired.attorneys/index.html}} | |||
</ref> On ], President Bush declared in a press conference that his aides would not testify under oath on the matter if ]ed by ].<ref name="WP-xx">{{cite news|title= Bush Clashes With Congress on Prosecutors|work=]|date=], ]|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/us/politics/21attorneys.html?ex=1332129600&en=6190f05e97511f82&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss|accessdate=2007-07-25}}</ref> Bush explained his position saying "The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.... I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.... My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions."<ref>{{cite web|date=March 20, 2007|title=President Bush Addresses Resignations of U.S. Attorneys - The Diplomatic Reception Room|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070320-8.html}}</ref> | |||
====Battle resignation==== | |||
Despite the President's position against aides testifying, on ] the House Judiciary Committee authorized the subpoena of five Justice Department officials,<ref name="NYtimes3-21"> | |||
On March 5, 2007 effective March 16, ] resigned his position of Director of the ] (EOUSA).<ref name=Hartley20070321/><ref> | |||
{{cite news | title=Panel Approves Five Subpoenas on Prosecutors| work=] | date=March 21, 2007 | author=Hulse, Carl |accessdate=2007-03-23 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washington/22attorneys.html}} | |||
{{cite news | title=Messenger in Prosecutors' Firings Quits | author=David Johnston | date=2007-03-06 | newspaper=The New York Times | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06inquire.html?ex=1330837200&en=682ea9a6d2069de0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss| author-link=David Cay Johnston }}</ref> On March 6, 2007, Gonzales responded to the controversy in an op-ed in '']'' in which he wrote: | |||
</ref> | |||
and on ], the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas as well.<ref> | |||
{{cite news|title= Senate Panel Approves Subpoenas for 3 Top Bush Aides|author=Paul Kane|work=]|date=March 23, 2007|accessdate=2007-04-17|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200213.html}} | |||
</ref> | |||
<blockquote>To be clear, was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management — what have been referred to broadly as "performance-related" reasons — that seven U.S. attorneys were asked to resign last December ... We have never asked a U.S. attorney to resign in an effort to retaliate against him or her or to inappropriately interfere with a public corruption case (or any other type of case, for that matter). Like me, U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and we all serve at the pleasure of the president. If U.S. attorneys are not executing their responsibilities in a manner that furthers the management and policy goals of departmental leadership, it is appropriate that they be replaced ... While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost my confidence. I hope that this episode ultimately will be recognized for what it is: an overblown personnel matter.<ref name="Gonzales-03-06-07" /></blockquote> | |||
=====Taylor testimony===== | |||
On July 11, 2007, ], former top aide to Karl Rove, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She was granted the unusual allowance of having her attorney, Neil Eggleston, next to her at the witness table to advise her on which questions she could answer and remain in accord with Bush's claim of Executive Privilege. Throughout Taylor's testimony she refused to answer many questions, saying "I have a very clear letter from Mr. ]. That letter says and has asked me to follow the president's assertion of executive privilege."<ref name="Kwame Taylor"> | |||
{{cite news|date=July 11, 2007|title=New Testimony on Fired Federal Prosecutors|publisher=PBS Newshour|url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/firings_07-11.html|author=Kwame Holman}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Chairman ] (D-VT) dismissed the claims and warned Taylor she was "in danger of drawing a criminal contempt of Congress citation."<ref name="Kwame Taylor"/> Senator ] (D-MD) took issue with the claim as well, telling Taylor "You seem to be selective in the use of the presidential privilege. It seems like you're saying that, 'Yes, I'm giving you all the information I can,' when it's self-serving to the White House, but not allowing us to have the information to make independent judgment."<ref name="Kwame Taylor"/> | |||
Leahy added "I do note your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and, to the best of your knowledge, he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House because it seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved."<ref name="Kwame Taylor"/> He also said "It's apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels it does not have to explain itself to anyone, not to the people's representatives in Congress nor to the American people."<ref name="Taylor Excerpts"> | |||
{{cite news|title=Excerpts from the Sara M. Taylor hearing|publisher=Associated Press|date=07/11/2007|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6349986}} | |||
</ref> | |||
At one point Taylor said "I took an oath and I take that oath to the president very seriously."<ref name="Aide"> | |||
{{cite news|title=Aide: Didn't Talk to Bush About Firings|date=July 11, 2007|author=Laurie Kellman|publisher=Associated Press|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6772568,00.html}} | |||
</ref> She was corrected by Leahy who pointed out that her oath had been to uphold the Constitution, "Your oath is not to uphold the president."<ref name="Aide"/> After she agreed with his statement, Leahy said "We understand your personal loyalty to President Bush. I appreciate you correcting that your oath was not to the president, but to the Constitution. But you also have legal obligations to honor your oath to tell the truth, the whole truth. And failures to produce documents and no recalls, those are very difficult for me to accept as chairman of this committee."<ref name="Taylor Excerpts"/> | |||
Sen. ] (R-PA) told Taylor "You might have been on safer legal ground if you'd said absolutely nothing.... You are between a rock and a hard place. There's no way you can come out a winner. And I don't think any U.S. attorney anywhere, as the appointee of the president, is going to bring a criminal contempt citation. But if this committee asks for one, it will be a big cloud over you, a big smear that'll last the rest of your life."<ref name="Aide"/><ref name="Taylor Excerpts"/> | |||
====Sampson resignation==== | |||
In summary, Taylor told the Senate that she "did not talk to or meet with President Bush about removing federal prosecutors before eight of them were fired", she had no knowledge on whether Bush was involved in any way in the firings, her resignation had nothing to do with the controversy, "she did not recall ordering the addition or deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired", and she refuted the testimony of ], Attorney General ]' chief of staff, that she sought "to avoid submitting a new prosecutor, ], through Senate confirmation."<ref name="Aide"/><ref name="Kwame Taylor"/> | |||
On March 12, 2007, Sampson resigned from the Department of Justice.<ref name=LaraJakesJordan /> | |||
On March 13, Gonzales stated in a news conference that he accepted responsibility for mistakes made in the dismissal and rejected calls for his resignation that Democratic members of Congress had been making. He also stood by his decision to dismiss the attorneys, saying "I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision".<ref name=LaraJakesJordan /> | |||
=====Contempt of Congress charges===== | |||
Gonzales admitted that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials,<ref>{{cite press release |date=March 13, 2007 |access-date=2007-03-18 |url=http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2007/ag_speech_070313.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070825102401/http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2007/ag_speech_070313.html |archive-date=2007-08-25 |title=Transcript of Media Availability With Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales |publisher=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-13 |work=New York Post |url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03142007/news/nationalnews/prosecutor_firings_are_my_bad___gonzales_nationalnews_.htm |agency=Associated Press |date=March 13, 2007 |title=Prosecutor Firings Are My Bad — Gonzales |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015145516/http://www.nypost.com/seven/03142007/news/nationalnews/prosecutor_firings_are_my_bad___gonzales_nationalnews_.htm |archive-date=October 15, 2007 }}</ref> and said that "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood." | |||
On July 11, 2007, as Sara Taylor testified, it was announced by George Manning, the attorney to former ] ], that Miers intended to follow the request of the Bush Administration and not appear before the Committee the following day.<ref name="no show"> | |||
{{cite news|title=BREAKING: Bush blocks Miers from appearing before House Judiciary Committee, contempt charges possible|author=Michael Roston|date=Wednesday July 11, 2007|url=http://rawstory.com/news/2007/BREAKING__Bush_blocks_Miers_from_0711.html}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Manning stated Miers "cannot provide the documents and testimony that the committee seeks."<ref name="Aide"/> | |||
Gonzales lost more support when records subsequently challenged some of these statements. Although the Department of Justice released 3,000 pages of its internal communications related to this issue, none of those documents discussed anything related to a performance review process for these attorneys before they were fired.<ref>{{cite news | date=2007-03-20 | title=E-Mails Show Justice Dept. in Damage-Control Mode | author=Ari Shapiro | publisher=National Public Radio | url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9003390}}</ref> Records released on March 23 showed that on his November 27 schedule "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the ]".<ref>{{cite news |date=2007-03-26 |title=White House backs AG as support wanes |author=Lara Jakes Jordan |agency=Associated Press |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/26/national/w074341D05.DTL |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080624113643/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F03%2F26%2Fnational%2Fw074341D05.DTL |archive-date=June 24, 2008 }}</ref> | |||
In response to the announcement Committee Chairman ] (D-MI) and Rep. ] (D-CA) Chair of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, released a letter saying the decision "could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings." Conyers wrote "I am extremely disappointed in the White House's direction to Ms. Miers that she not even show up to assert the privilege before the Committee. We understand that the White House has asserted privilege over both her testimony and documents, and we are prepared to consider those claims at tomorrow's hearing."<ref name="no show"/> Sanchez wrote "It is disappointing that Ms. Miers has chosen to forego this opportunity to give her account of the potential politicization of the justice system.," Sánchez added "Our investigation has shown - through extensive interviews and review of documents - that Ms. Miers played a central role in the Bush Administration's decision to fire chief federal prosecutors. I am hopeful that Ms. Miers will reconsider the White House's questionable assertion of executive privilege and give her testimony on the firing of U.S. Attorneys."<ref name="no show"/> | |||
====Executive Privilege claims==== | |||
On July 17, 2007 Sanchez and Conyers notified White House Counsel ] that they were considering the executive privilege claims concerning a "subpoena issued on June 13 to ], ], to produce documents."<ref name="fielding warning"> | |||
] Chairman ] stated that Congress has the authority to ] Justice Department and White House officials including chief political advisor to the president Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.<ref name="WP-20070354">{{cite news | title= Subpoenas target Justice; White House could be next| publisher=CNN | date=2007-03-15 | url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/fired.attorneys/index.html}}</ref> On March 20, President Bush declared in a press conference that his aides would not testify under oath on the matter if ]ed by ].<ref name="WP-xx">{{cite news|title= Bush Clashes With Congress on Prosecutors|work=The New York Times|date=March 20, 2007|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/us/politics/21attorneys.html?ex=1332129600&en=6190f05e97511f82&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss|access-date=2007-07-25}}</ref> Bush explained his position saying, | |||
{{cite web|title=Conyers, Sánchez Respond to RNC on Subpoena, Alerts White House of Potential Ruling on Immunity, Privilege Claims|date=July 17, 2007|author=Linda Sanchez & John Conyers, Jr.|url=http://www.lindasanchez.house.gov/news.cfm/article/334}} | |||
</ref> Warning him that "If those objections are overruled, you should be aware that the refusal to produce the documents called for in the subpoena could subject Mr. Bolten to contempt proceedings".<ref name="fielding warning"/> The panel then ruled the claims of privilege as invalid on a party-line vote of 7-3.<ref name="faces"> | |||
{{cite news|title=Bush chief of staff faces possible contempt charge|date=Jul 20, 2007|url=http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-28568320070720|publisher=Reuters}} | |||
</ref> | |||
<blockquote>The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served ... I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials ... My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions.<ref>{{cite web|date=2007-03-20|title=President Bush Addresses Resignations of U.S. Attorneys - The Diplomatic Reception Room|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070320-8.html}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
The White House has consistently refused to provide the sought after documents but has "offered to permit former and current aides to talk with lawmakers behind closed doors -- but without a transcript and not under oath."<ref name="faces"/> This offer has been rejected by the Democratic Leadership in the House as unacceptable.<ref name="faces"/> | |||
Despite the President's position against aides testifying, on March 21 the House Judiciary Committee authorized the subpoena of five Justice Department officials,<ref name="NYtimes3-21">{{cite news | title=Panel Approves Five Subpoenas on Prosecutors| work=The New York Times | date=2007-03-21 | author=Hulse, Carl |access-date=2007-03-23 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washington/22attorneys.html}}</ref> and on March 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas as well.<ref>{{cite news|title= Senate Panel Approves Subpoenas for 3 Top Bush Aides|author=Paul Kane|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=2007-03-23|access-date=2007-04-17|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200213.html}}</ref> | |||
On July 25, 2007 the ] voted along party lines 22-17 to issue citations of ] to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.<ref name="NPR-Shapiro-2007-07-25"> | |||
{{cite news|title=Bush Aides in Contempt; Will They Be Prosecuted?|author=Ari Shapiro|date=July 25, 2007|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12234115|work=All Things Considered |publisher=National Public Radio}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Committee Republicans voted against the measure calling it "a partisan waste of time", while Democrats said "this is the moment for Congress to rein in the administration."<ref name="NPR-Shapiro-2007-07-25"/> ] ] said of the move "For our view, this is pathetic. What you have right now is partisanship on Capitol Hill that quite often boils down to insults, insinuations, inquisitions and investigations rather than pursuing the normal business of trying to pass major pieces of legislation...now we have a situation where there is an attempt to do something that's never been done in American history, which is to assail the concept of executive privilege, which hails back to the administration of ]".<ref> | |||
{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070725-3.html|title=Press Briefing by Tony Snow, James S. Brady Briefing Room|date=July 25, 2007}} The White House. Retrieved July 25, 2007. | |||
</ref> | |||
Committee Chairman ] said "Unlike other disputes involving executive privilege, the president has never personally asserted privilege. The committee has never been given a privilege log, and there is no indication the president was ever personally involved in the termination decisions."<ref name="NPR-Shapiro-2007-07-25"/> Having passed the Committee the motion goes to the full House where it is unlikely to receive a vote until after Congress's August recess.<ref name="NPR-Shapiro-2007-07-25"/> If the measure passes the full House, the case would be given to the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, ], who was appointed by Attorney General Gonzales in September 2006. "The administration has said it will direct federal prosecutors not to prosecute contempt charges."<ref name="NPR-Shapiro-2007-07-25"/> | |||
On February 14, 2008 the full ] voted 223-32 to pass the contempt resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.<ref>{{cite news|title=House passes contempt resolution against white house officials|author=Paul Kiel|date=February 14, 2008|url=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/house_passes_contempt_votes_ag.php}}</ref><ref>Original text of the Letter from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Attorney General Michael Mukasey informing him of the contempt resolution passing the House, http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/PelosiToMukasey080228.pdf</ref> | |||
====Goodling resignation==== | ====Goodling resignation==== | ||
{{main|Monica Goodling}} | |||
On ], ] it was announced ] took leave from her job as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House.<ref> | |||
Sampson's replacement as the attorney general's temporary chief of staff was the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, ]. Rosenberg initiated a DOJ inquiry into possibly inappropriate political considerations in Monica Goodling's hiring practices for civil service staff. ] positions are not political appointments and must be made on a nonpartisan basis. In one example, ], former interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to hire a new career prosecutor, Seth Adam Meinero, in the fall of 2006. Goodling judged Meinero too "liberal" and declined to approve the hire.<ref name="WPost-Eggen-2007-05-23">{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen |author2=Carol D. Leonnig | title=Officials Describe Interference by Former Gonzales Aide | date=2007-05-23 | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201601.html | newspaper =The Washington Post | pages =A04 | access-date = 2007-05-23 }}</ref> Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency, was serving as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office. Taylor went around Goodling, and demanded Sampson's approval to make the hire. In another example, Goodling removed an attorney from her job at the Department of Justice because she was rumored to be a lesbian, and, further, blocked the attorney from getting other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for.<ref>{{cite news| first=Ari| last=Shapiro| title=Justice Rehires Attorney Fired Amid Gay Rumor| date=2009-02-02| url = https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100147494| work =National Public Radio| access-date = 2009-02-02}}</ref> Rules concerning hiring at the Justice Department forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation. | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url = http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1081341.html | title = Gonzales aide will invoke Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify | |||
| author = Talev, Margaret; Hutcheson, Ron and Taylor, Marisa | publisher = McClatchy News Service | date = ] | |||
| accessdate = 2007-04-07 | publisher = ] }} | |||
</ref> | |||
Goodling was set to testify before Congress, but on ], ], Goodling cancelled her upcoming appearance at a Congressional hearing, citing her ] right against self-incrimination.<ref> | |||
, March 24, 2007</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news | title=Gonzales's Senior Counselor Refuses to Testify | author=Dan Eggen | publisher=] |date=March 26, 2007 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032600935.html }} | |||
</ref> | |||
On ], ], Ms. Goodling announced her resignation from the Department of Justice.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| title = Gonzales aide Goodling resigns | first = Lara Jakes | last = Jordan | publisher = ] | date = ] | accessdate = 2007-04-07 }} | |||
</ref> | |||
She had helped coordinate the dismissal of the attorneys with the White House.<ref name = "NYTimes Top Aide Resigns"> | |||
{{ cite news | |||
| author = Stout, David and Johnsont, David | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/washington/07goodling.html?pagewanted=print | |||
| title = A Top Aide to the Attorney General Resigns | date = ] | publisher = ] | accessdate = 2007-04-07 }} | |||
</ref> | |||
Goodling stated in her three-sentence resignation letter to Mr. Gonzales, “May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America.”<ref name = "NYTimes Top Aide Resigns"/> | |||
On March 26, 2007, Goodling, who had helped coordinate the dismissal of the attorneys with the White House, took leave from her job as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House.<ref name = "NYTimes Top Aide Resigns">{{cite news|author1=Stout, David |author2=Johnson, David | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/washington/07goodling.html?pagewanted=print| title = A Top Aide to the Attorney General Resigns | date = 2007-04-06 | newspaper = The New York Times | access-date = 2007-04-07 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1081341.html | title = Gonzales aide will invoke Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify | author1 = Talev, Margaret | author2 = Hutcheson, Ron | author3 = Taylor, Marisa | date = 2007-03-26 | access-date = 2007-04-07 | newspaper = ] }}{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Goodling was set to testify before Congress, but on March 26, 2007, she cancelled her appearance at the congressional hearing, citing her ] right against self-incrimination.<ref>{{cite news | title=Gonzales's Senior Counselor Refuses to Testify | author=Dan Eggen | newspaper=The Washington Post |date=2007-03-26 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032600935.html }}</ref> On April 6, 2007, Goodling resigned from the Department of Justice.<ref name = "NYTimes Top Aide Resigns"/> | |||
On ], ], the ] passed a resolution,<ref> | |||
{{ cite news | |||
|title = April 25, 2007 House Judiciary Committee Resolution to Direct House General Counsel to Apply for Immunity Order | |||
| url = http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/house-judiciary-committee-resolution-authorizing-request-to-seek-court-ordered-immunity-for-monica-goodling/ | |||
| publisher = Gonzales Watch | date = ] | accessdate = 2007-05-11}} | |||
</ref> | |||
by a 32-6 vote, authorizing lawyers for the House to apply for a court order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony, surpassing the required 2/3 majority, and immediately authorized a subpoena for her.<ref> | |||
</ref> | |||
On May 11, 2007 ] Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order granting Goodling ] in exchange for her truthful testimony in the U.S. Attorney firings investigation, stating that "Goodling may not refuse to testify, and may not refuse to provide other information, when compelled to do so" before the Committee.<ref> | |||
{{ cite news | |||
| title = Order Granting Monica Goodling immunity | publisher = Gonzales Watch | url = http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/ | date = ] | accessdate = 2007-05-11}} | |||
</ref> | |||
On April 25, 2007, the ] passed a resolution, by a 32–6 vote, authorizing lawyers for the House to apply for a court order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony and authorizing a subpoena for her.<ref>{{cite web |title=House panel approves subpoena for Rice |website=] |date=25 April 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180106120243/https://www.nbcnews.com/id/18308547/ |archive-date=2018-01-06 |url-status=live |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18308547}}</ref> On May 11, 2007, ] Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order granting Goodling ] in exchange for her truthful testimony in the U.S. attorney firings investigation, stating that "Goodling may not refuse to testify, and may not refuse to provide other information, when compelled to do so" before the committee.<ref>{{cite news|author1=Dan Eggen|author2=Paul Kane|title=Judge Gives Immunity to Gonzales Aide|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051102111.html|access-date=4 December 2015|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> | |||
==Subpoenas and lost emails== | |||
{{seealso|Bush White House e-mail controversy}} | |||
] | |||
On ], ], the ] issued a subpoena for documents from ] that included the full text of all documents that had been partially or completely ] in the DOJ's previous release of documents.<ref name=Kellman2> | |||
Laurie Kellman "Panel subpoenas Gonzales for documents" AP wire, April 10, 1007 | |||
</ref> | |||
In a letter accompanying the subpoena, Rep. ] (]), the chair of the committee, wrote "We have been patient in allowing the department to work through its concerns regarding the sensitive nature of some of these materials.... Unfortunately, the department has not indicated any meaningful willingness to find a way to meet our legitimate needs...At this point further delay in receiving these materials will not serve any constructive purpose."<ref name=Kellman2 /> | |||
Goodling appeared before the ], on May 23, 2007, under a limited immunity agreement,<ref name="gonzaleswatch.com">{{cite web |title=Order Granting Monica Goodling immunity |publisher=Gonzales Watch |url=http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/ |date=2007-05-11 |access-date=2007-05-11 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070618031659/http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/ |archive-date=2007-06-18 }}</ref> and provided to the committee a written statement that she read at the start of her testimony.<ref name="WPost-Eggen-2007-05-23"/><ref name='HouseJudiciary-Goodling-2007-05-23'>{{cite news|first=Monica |last=Goodling |title=Remarks of Monica Goodling before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives |date=May 23, 2007 |publisher=Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives |url=http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/GoodlingII070523.pdf |access-date=2007-05-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070530210304/http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/GoodlingII070523.pdf |archive-date=2007-05-30 |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
The Justice Department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, responded to the subpoena stating that the administration would like "to reach an accommodation with the Congress" but that it might not be possible. "Much of the information that the Congress seeks pertains to individuals other than the U.S. attorneys who resigned.... Furthermore, many of the documents Congress is now seeking have already been available to them for review. Because there are individual privacy interests implicated by publicly releasing this information, it is unfortunate the Congress would choose this option." said Roehrkasse.<ref> | |||
Dan Eggen, Washington Post, April 11, 2007 | |||
</ref> | |||
Later that day a White House spokesman stated that some of the emails that had involved official correspondence relating to the firing of attorneys may have been lost because they were conducted on Republican party accounts and not stored properly. "Some official e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake the White House is aggressively working to correct." said Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman. Stonzel said that they could not rule out the possibility that some of the lost emails dealt with the firing of U.S. attorneys.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | title= White House: E-mails on firings may have been killed |publisher=Reuters |date=April 11, 2007}} | |||
</ref> | |||
In response to questions during the hearing, Goodling stated that she "crossed the line" and broke civil service rules about hiring, and improperly weighed political factors in considering applicants for career positions at the Department of Justice.<ref name="NYT-Stout-2007-05-23"/><ref name='WP-Goodling-Transcript-2007-05-23'>{{cite news | first=Transcripts Wire | last=Congressional Quarterly | title=Goodling Testifies Before The House Judiciary Committee | date=May 23, 2007 | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_testimony_052307.html | newspaper =Washington Post | access-date = 2007-05-23 }}</ref> | |||
CNN reported a larger question concerning the lost e-mails: "Whether White House officials such as political adviser Karl Rove are intentionally conducting sensitive official presidential business via non-governmental accounts to evade a law requiring preservation -- and eventual disclosure -- of presidential records."<ref> | |||
{{cite news | title= Leahy: Aides lying about White House-Justice e-mails | |||
|publisher=] |date=April 12, 2007 |accessdate=2007-04-20}} | |||
</ref> | |||
On May 2, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Gonzales compelling the Department of Justice to produce all email from Karl Rove regarding evaluation and dismissal of attorneys that was sent to DOJ staffers, no matter what email account Rove may have used, whether White House, National Republican party, or other accounts, with a deadline of May 15, 2007 for compliance. The subpoena also demanded relevant email previously produced in the ] controversy and investigation for the ].<ref> | |||
Lahey, Patrick ''United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary''' (via ''Findlaw'') May 2, 2007. Retrieved May 8, 2007. | |||
</ref> | |||
====Gonzales resignation==== | |||
== Congressional hearings == | |||
A number of members of both houses of Congress publicly said Gonzales should resign, or be fired by Bush. On March 14, 2007, Senator ] (], ]) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Gonzales' resignation. Sununu cited not only the controversial firings but growing concern over the use of the ] and misuse of ] by the ].<ref name="WP-20070351">{{cite news | title= GOP senator calls for Gonzales' head |author=Suzanne Malveaux |author2=Dana Bash |author3=Ed Henry |author4=Terry Frieden |work=CNN | date=2007-03-14 | url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/fired.attorneys/index.html}}</ref> Calls for his ousting intensified after his testimony on April 19, 2007. By May 16, at least twenty-two senators and seven members of the House of Representatives—including Senators ] (], New York) and ] (], ])—had called for Gonzales' resignation.<ref> | |||
{{Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy_Gonzales_April_19_2007}} | |||
{{cite news | title= Sen. Pryor: Attorney General lied to the Senate |author=Dana Bash |author2=Ed Henry |author3=Terry Frieden |author4=Suzanne Malveaux |work=CNN | date=2007-03-15 | url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/fired.attorneys/index.html}}</ref> | |||
{{main|Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings}} | |||
:''See: ] for released documents and hearings transcripts'' | |||
Gonzales submitted his resignation as Attorney General effective September 17, 2007,<ref name="BBC-BushAllyResigns">{{cite news|title = Bush Ally Gonzales resigns post| work = BBC News | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6965602.stm | date = 2007-08-27 | access-date = 2007-08-28 }}</ref> by a letter addressed to President Bush on August 26, 2007. In a statement on August 27, Gonzales thanked the President for the opportunity to be of service to his country, giving no indication of either the reasons for his resignation or his future plans. Later that day, President Bush praised Gonzales for his service, reciting the numerous positions in Texas government, and later, the government of the United States, to which Bush had appointed Gonzales.<ref name="BBC-BushAllyResigns" /> | |||
The United States Congress's ] and the ] have oversight authority over ] (DOJ). In 2007 the two committees conducted a number of public and closed-door oversight and investigative hearings on the topic of the dismissal of U.S. attorneys, and DOJ's interactions with the White House and with staff members of the ]. A routine oversight hearing on ] ] by the Senate committee with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was the first public congressional occasion that Gonzales responded to questions about the dismissed attorneys. Through the winter and spring, appearing in more than eleven public committee hearings were a number of key players in the controversy, past and continuing DOJ officials, dismissed U.S. Attorneys, and others. Some individuals appeared at the invitation of the committees, and some appeared only under the compulsion of committee-issued subpoena. One former DOJ official ] testified in May 2007, only after the grant of a limited "use" immunity, after reserving the right to not incriminate herself. The two committees made public through their web sites thousands of pages of documents and correspondence that had been subpoenaed from the Department of Justice, individuals, and other organizations. | |||
On September 17, 2007, President Bush announced the nomination of ex-judge ] to serve as Gonzales' successor.<ref name='WPost-Eggen-2007-09-19'>{{cite news | first= Dan | last= Eggen |author2=Elizabeth Williamson | title= Democrats May Tie Confirmation to Gonzales Papers | date= September 19, 2007 | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801379.html?nav=rss_politics | newspaper = The Washington Post | pages = A10 | access-date = 2007-09-19 }}</ref> | |||
==Status of interim U.S. Attorneys, through June 2007== | |||
Gonzales affirmed in his ], ] testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee:<ref name='Nat-Jnl-2007-03-10'> | |||
{{cite news | first=Murray | last=Waas | coauthors= | title=Administration Withheld E-Mails About Rove | date=May 10, 2007 | publisher=National Journal Group | url =http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070510nj1.htm | work =National Journal | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }} | |||
</ref> {{cquote|I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed United States attorney.}} | |||
====Testimony of Sara Taylor: Claims of executive privilege==== | |||
As of late May 2007, there were 22 U.S. attorney positions out of 93 that were not held by a presidentially nominated occupant: either ''acting'' (filled by civil service First Assistant U.S. Attorneys), or ''interim'' (nearly all appointed by the Attorney General). Only four nominees have been submitted by the administration for the 22 positions, though White House spokesperson Tony Fratto was reported saying that the administration is committed to nominating candidates for all 22 positions. Fratto said the number of new nominees "has nothing to do with recent events. The closer you get toward the end of the second term, you're going to have fewer people."<ref name='McClatchy-Talev-2007-05-25'> | |||
On July 11, 2007, ], former top aide to Karl Rove, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Throughout Taylor's testimony, she refused to answer many questions, saying "I have a very clear letter from Mr. Fielding]]. That letter says and has asked me to follow the president's assertion of ]."<ref name="Kwame Taylor">{{cite news|date=July 11, 2007|title=New Testimony on Fired Federal Prosecutors|publisher=PBS Newshour|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/firings_07-11.html|author=Kwame Holman|author-link=Kwame Holman|access-date=August 26, 2017|archive-date=January 19, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140119001722/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/firings_07-11.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> Chairman ] (D-VT) dismissed the claims and warned Taylor she was "in danger of drawing a criminal contempt of Congress citation".<ref name="Kwame Taylor"/> Senator ] (D-MD) took issue with the claim as well, telling Taylor | |||
{{cite news | first=Margaret; | last=Talev | coauthors= Marisa Taylor and Lesley Clark | title=U.S. Attorneys: Fewer candidates apply for positions as U.S. attorneys | date=May 25, 2007 | publisher=McClatchy Newspapers | url =http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/usattorneys/17280974.htm | work =McClatchy Washington Bureau | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-28 | language = }} | |||
</ref> | |||
David Iglesias, the dismissed New Mexico U.S. attorney, said that the administration is in denial if it doesn't believe there are concerns about low office morale, the ability to remain independent or even the odds of being confirmed by a suspicious Senate controlled by the Democrats.<ref name='McClatchy-Talev-2007-05-25'/> | |||
{{quote|You seem to be selective in the use of the presidential privilege. It seems like you're saying that, 'Yes, I'm giving you all the information I can,' when it's self-serving to the White House, but not allowing us to have the information to make independent judgment.<ref name="Kwame Taylor"/> | |||
], the interim attorney for Eastern Arkansas, announced in February 2007 that he would not seek a presidential nomination. In early February, Deputy Attorney General McNulty had testified that a vacancy was specifically created for Griffin by dismissing ].<ref> | |||
{{cite web|accessdate=2007-03-21 | |||
|url=http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/griffin-120-days/ | |||
|title=Gonzales Allows Karl Rove-Protege To Remain As U.S. Attorney, Even Though His Term Has Expired | |||
|publisher=Think Progress}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Griffin said that he did not believe he would get a "fair consideration" from the Senate.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| title=Interim Ark. U.S. Attorney Won't Seek Job: Former Rove Aide Says Senate Democrats Would Block Permanent Nomination | |||
| author=Dan Eggen | publisher=] |date=2007-04-17| page=A10 | |||
| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021600936.html}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Leahy added "I do note your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and, to the best of your knowledge, he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House because it seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved."<ref name="Kwame Taylor"/> He also said "It's apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels it does not have to explain itself to anyone, not to the people's representatives in Congress nor to the American people."<ref name="Taylor Excerpts">{{cite news|title=Excerpts from the Sara M. Taylor hearing |agency=Associated Press |date=2007-07-11 |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6349986 }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} | |||
Interim U.S. Attorneys appointed under the provisions of the Patriot Act Re-authorization were not term limited. ]'s continuing term was challenged in court, but Judge G. Thomas Eisele rejected the challenge, finding that Griffin held the position under the ] provision that allowed unlimited-term appointments. <ref> | |||
</ref>}} | |||
{{cite news | url=http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/03/17/WashingtonDCBureau/341152.html | |||
| title= Judge rules Griffin legally appointed | date=2007-03-17 | accessdate=2007-05-29 | first=Aaron Sadler | last =Sadler | publisher=Arkansas News Bureau}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Under the previous law, Griffin's term would have been limited to 120 days, which would have expired in mid-April 2007. Legislation restoring the term limits to interim U.S. Attorneys () also limits the terms of those interim U.S. Attorneys appointed under the Patriot Act Reauthorization to 120 days from the time of enactment of the legislation, which was June 14, 2007.<ref name='LOC-THOMAS-S214-Text'> | |||
{{cite news | author=United States Congress | title=List of text versions of S.214 | date= | publisher=Library of Congress | url =http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.214: | work =THOMAS (Database) | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-30 | language = }} | |||
<!-- Please take care not to change the format of this footnote addendum below --> | |||
:The Text of the relevant section of S214: | |||
:SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY. | |||
:: (a) In General - The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. | |||
:: (b) Application - (1) IN GENERAL - Any person serving as a United States attorney on the day before the date of enactment of this Act who was appointed under section 546 of title 28, United States Code, may serve until the earlier of: | |||
:::(A) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of that title; or | |||
:::(B) 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act. | |||
<!-- END of Footnote adendum FORMAT --></ref><ref name='GPO-S214-text'> | |||
{{cite news | author=United States Congress | title=Text of S.214 | date= | publisher=Government Printing Office (GPO) | url =http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s214es.txt.pdf | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-30 | language = }} | |||
</ref> | |||
In summary, Taylor told the Senate that she | |||
<!-- commented out below - not part of the narrative; needs recitation of other interim appointments. --- | |||
On ], ], Alberto Gonzales appointed ] as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia under these USA PATRIOT Act provisions. He was sworn in without ] seven days later.<ref name=DOJemails> | |||
{{cite web|accessdate=2007-03-21 |url=http://judiciary.house.gov/ |title=3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents |publisher=U.S. House Judiciary Committee}} | |||
</ref> | |||
commented out above --> | |||
<blockquote>"did not talk to or meet with President Bush about removing federal prosecutors before eight of them were fired", she had no knowledge on whether Bush was involved in any way in the firings, her resignation had nothing to do with the controversy, "she did not recall ordering the addition or deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired", and she refuted the testimony of Kyle Sampson, Attorney General ]' chief of staff, that she sought "to avoid submitting a new prosecutor, ], through Senate confirmation."<ref name="Kwame Taylor"/><ref name="Aide">{{cite news|title=Aide: Didn't Talk to Bush About Firings |date=2007-07-11 |author=Laurie Kellman |agency=Associated Press |url=https://www.theguardian.com/worldlatest/story/0,,-6772568,00.html |location=London |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071025150246/http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6772568,00.html |archive-date=October 25, 2007 }}</ref></blockquote> | |||
==Other related controversies under Bush presidency== | |||
{{seealso|Bradley Schlozman}} | |||
===Biskupic prosecution of Georgia Thompson=== | |||
{{main|Georgia Thompson}} | |||
===Contempt of Congress charges=== | |||
Under U.S. attorney ] in Wisconsin, ] was convicted for corruption charges related to a Democratic governor. The conviction occurred shortly before the 2006 elections and played a role in the election campaigns in Wisconsin.<ref>{{cite news | |||
On July 11, 2007, as Sara Taylor testified, George Manning, the attorney to former ] Harriet Miers, announced that Miers intended to follow the request of the Bush Administration and not appear before the Committee the following day. Manning stated Miers "cannot provide the documents and testimony that the committee seeks."<ref>{{cite news|title=Bush orders Miers to defy house subpoena|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19704513|access-date=4 December 2015|work=NBC News}}</ref> | |||
|url=http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=502520 |title=18-month sentence in travel scandal Thompson gets prison time for steering state contract |publisher=Milwaukee Journal Sentinel |date=] |accessdate=2007-05-12 |first=Gina last=Barton}} | |||
</ref> | |||
On appeal to the appellate court, however, the charges were thrown out immediately after the short hearing. This extraordinary decision suggested that the original charges were unsubstantiated.<ref name="Thompson"> | |||
{{cite news | url=http://www.wiscnews.com/pdr/news/128622 | title=Baldwin calls on Congress to look into Thompson case | publisher=] | date=2007 | first=Federick last=Frommer | accessdate = 2007-04-18}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Congresswoman ] has called for investigation in conjunction with current inquiry with the United States Attorney's Office. Biskupic says he will fully cooperate with an inquiry.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | url=http://www.riverfallsjournal.com/articles/index.cfm?id=23432§ion=Wisconsin%20News&property_id=9 | title=Biskupic says he will fully cooperate with the Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiry | publisher=] |date=April 11, 2007 | first= last= | accessdate = 2007-04-18}} | |||
</ref> | |||
On July 17, 2007 Sanchez and Conyers notified White House Counsel ] that they were considering the executive privilege claims concerning a "subpoena issued on June 13 to ], ], to produce documents."<ref name="fielding warning">{{cite web|title=Conyers, Sánchez Respond to RNC on Subpoena, Alerts White House of Potential Ruling on Immunity, Privilege Claims |date=2007-07-17 |author1=Linda Sánchez |author2=John Conyers, Jr. |url=http://www.lindasanchez.house.gov/news.cfm/article/334 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070725204318/http://www.lindasanchez.house.gov/news.cfm/article/334 |archive-date=July 25, 2007 }}</ref> They warned, "If those objections are overruled, you should be aware that the refusal to produce the documents called for in the subpoena could subject Mr. Bolten to contempt proceedings".<ref name="fielding warning"/> The panel ruled the claims of privilege as invalid on a party-line vote of 7–3.<ref name="faces">{{cite news|title=Bush chief of staff faces possible contempt charge|date=2007-07-20|url=http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-28568320070720|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170203100432/http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-28568320070720|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 3, 2017|work=Reuters}}</ref> | |||
In April, Senate Democrats asked whether U.S. Attorney Biskupic was pressured by the ] or the ] to prosecute ].<ref> | |||
</ref> Biskupic had been on the original list for dismissal, and "had been identified by Rove as weak on prosecuting voter fraud."<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000109.html | title = House GOP Stands Behind Gonzales | publisher = ] | first = Dan | last = Eggen | coauthors= Paul Kane | date = ] | accessdate = 2007-05-13 }} | |||
</ref> | |||
Jurors defended their verdict, and some Democrats, including former ] ], who conducted a parallel investigation, said that Biskupic was not politically motivated. Thompson made no statement to the media.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
|url=http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=587861 |title=Conviction may cost Thompson $300,000: Former state employee in seclusion after release |author=Steven Walters and Patrick Marley |date=], ] |publisher=] |accessdate=2007-04-07}} | |||
</ref> | |||
On July 25, 2007 the ] voted along party lines 22–17 to issue citations of ] to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.<ref name="NPR-Shapiro-2007-07-25">{{cite news|title=Bush Aides in Contempt; Will They Be Prosecuted?|author=Ari Shapiro|date=2007-07-25|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12234115|work=All Things Considered |publisher=National Public Radio}}</ref> Committee Republicans voted against the measure, calling it "a partisan waste of time", while Democrats said "this is the moment for Congress to rein in the administration."<ref name="NPR-Shapiro-2007-07-25"/> | |||
A former U.S. Attorney who is a professor at the ], Frank Tuerkheimer, said he could not recall another case "where an appellate court after hearing oral arguments ordered the release of a person who's confined" that same day. A former Assistant U.S. Attorney who is a Madison lawyer, Chris Van Wagner, predicted a "strongly worded" written opinion telling the government, "You never had enough to get out of the starting gate." Another law professor could think of only one other case where a defendant was freed immediately rather than given a new trial.<ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
|url=http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=128460&ntpid=2 | |||
|title=Experts say ruling hits prosecutor's credibility |author=Jason Stein |date=] ] |publisher=] |accessdate=2007-04-10}} | |||
</ref> | |||
On February 14, 2008, the ] voted 223–32 along party lines to pass the contempt resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Bolten and former White House Counsel Miers.<ref>{{cite news|title=House passes contempt resolution against white house officials|author=Paul Kiel|date=2008-02-14|url=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/house_passes_contempt_votes_ag.php}}</ref><ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080529013513/http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/PelosiToMukasey080228.pdf |date=May 29, 2008 }}</ref> Most Republicans staged a walkout during the vote. | |||
The ] delivered a letter to ] ] asking for documents in the case.<ref> | |||
{{cite news|url=http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/6956077.html|title=U.S. Senators Review Georgia Thompson Case|date=] ]|author=Jenn Rourke|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-04-10}} | |||
</ref> | |||
==Aftermath== | |||
===Black demotion=== | |||
On ], ], the day after a ] ] of records connected to ], the '']'' reported, "U.S. Attorney ], who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black." His replacement, ], recommended for the job by the ], was confirmed without any debate. The investigation of Abramoff in Guam ended when "Rapadas recused himself from the public corruption case involving Gutierrez]]" because "the new U.S. attorney was a cousin of 'one of the main targets'," according to a confidential memo to Justice Department officials."<ref name="Abramoff2005"> | |||
{{cite news | url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/ | title=Bush removal ended Guam investigation: U.S. attorney's demotion halted probe of lobbyist | publisher=] |date=August 8, 2005| first=Walter | last=Roche | accessdate = 2007-03-12}} | |||
</ref> | |||
=== |
===Subpoenas and lost emails=== | ||
{{see also|Bush White House e-mail controversy}} | |||
On ], ], Senator ], D-Calif. said she would inquire into whether ], the former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, was forced to leave her job late last year.<ref> | |||
{{cite news|accessdate=2007-03-21 | |||
|title=Senator still not satisfied: Feinstein looks at Lewis inquiry|author=Watson, George |url=http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_5484144|date=], ] | |||
|work=San Bernardino County Sun}} | |||
</ref> | |||
Yang had previously investigated Rep. ] on the use of earmarks and his relationships with lobbyists and defense contractors. In November, Yang left the DOJ to work at ], the same firm who is defending Lewis in the investigation. Yang has stated that she left on her own accord and there has been no evidence presented that she was forced out for her investigation. | |||
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that some of the emails that had involved official correspondence relating to the firing of attorneys may have been lost because they were conducted on Republican party accounts and not stored properly. "Some official e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake the White House is aggressively working to correct." said Stanzel, a White House spokesman. Stonzel said that they could not rule out the possibility that some of the lost emails dealt with the firing of U.S. attorneys.<ref>{{cite news | title= White House: E-mails on firings may have been killed |agency=Reuters |date=2007-04-11}}</ref> For example, ], an aide to Karl Rove communicated with ] "concerning the appointment of ], a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released in March, 2007. For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the ], where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher."<ref name=WP-GSA-20070326>{{cite news | title = GSA Chief Is Accused of Playing Politics: Doan Denies 'Improper' Use of Agency for GOP | author= Scott Higham |author2=Robert O'Harrow Jr | newspaper=The Washington Post | date=2007-03-26 |page=A01 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032501048.html }}</ref> | |||
===Paulose appointment: protests in Minnesota=== | |||
] was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney for Minneapolis on ], ]. Paulose had been appointed by Gonzales on ], ] to serve as interim U.S. Attorney. The departing U.S. Attorney, ], had resigned effective ] ].<ref name=Legal Times-McLure-2007-04-06>McLure, Jason. | |||
April 06, 2007. ''Legal Times''. Retrieved May 16, 2008. | |||
</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| first = Shannon | |||
| last = Prather | |||
| date = ] | |||
| title = Four at U.S. attorney's office quit top management posts | |||
| publisher = Pioneer Press | |||
| url = http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_5604832 | |||
| accessdate = 2007-04-18 }} | |||
</ref> | |||
Paulose's presidential appointment was ] by the ] by voice vote on ] ], the last day of the ] (ending her status as interim appointee).<ref> | |||
</ref> | |||
At 34, Paulose is the youngest U.S. Attorney in the country. She had previously served as a Justice Department counsel and special assistant to Gonzales.<ref name = "KSTP-AP"> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| date = ] | |||
| title = House wants to question Paulose | |||
| publisher = ABC News (The Associated Press) | |||
| url = http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S60957.shtml?cat=89 | |||
| accessdate = 2007-04-22 }} | |||
</ref> | |||
On ], ], her top deputies stepped down from their leadership positions and back into their nonsupervisory role within the office to protest the "ideologically driven and dictatorial managerial style" of Paulose.<ref name = "Deputies"> | |||
{{cite news | |||
| first = David | |||
| last = Johnston | |||
| date = ] | |||
| title = Deputies to a U.S. Attorney Step Down | |||
| publisher = New York Times | |||
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/washington/07attorneys.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1175917930-pVCN9uD8z3E9ZkVIjK5RCw&pagewanted=print | |||
| accessdate = 2007-04-07 }} | |||
</ref> | |||
The deputies were John Marti, the top assistant prosecutor; Erika R. Mozangue, chief of the office’s civil division; and James E. Lackner, chief of the office's criminal division.<ref name = "Deputies"/> | |||
CNN reported a larger question concerning the lost e-mails: "Whether White House officials such as political adviser Karl Rove are intentionally conducting sensitive official presidential business via non-governmental accounts to evade a law requiring preservation—and eventual disclosure—of presidential records."<ref>{{cite news | title= Leahy: Aides lying about White House-Justice e-mails|publisher=CNN |date=2007-04-12 }}</ref> | |||
On ], the ] reported that Ms. Paulose had been contacted by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee for voluntary questioning about the firings of eight U.S. federal prosecutors.<ref name = "KSTP-AP"/> | |||
On May 2, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Gonzales compelling the Department of Justice to produce all email from Karl Rove regarding evaluation and dismissal of attorneys that was sent to DOJ staffers, no matter what email account Rove may have used, whether White House, National Republican party, or other accounts, with a deadline of May 15, 2007, for compliance. The subpoena also demanded relevant email previously produced in the ] controversy and investigation for the ].<ref> | |||
Palouse resigned as U.S. Attorney on ], ] to work on legal policy issues at the Justice Department in Washington. | |||
Lahey, Patrick ''United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary''' (via ''Findlaw'') May 2, 2007. Retrieved May 8, 2007. | |||
</ref> | |||
In August 2007, Karl Rove resigned without responding to the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena claiming, "I just think it's time to leave."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-adviser-karl-rove-to-resign-at-end-of-month |title=Bush Adviser Karl Rove to Resign at End of Month |publisher=Foxnews.com |date=2007-08-13 |access-date=2011-04-17}}</ref> | |||
===Prosecution of Don Siegelman=== | |||
===Appointment of U.S. attorneys and the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization=== | |||
{{main|Don Siegelman}} | |||
The president of the United States has the authority to appoint ], with the consent of the ], and the president may remove U.S. attorneys from office.<ref> | |||
In June 2007 a Republican lawyer signed a sworn statement that she had heard five years ago that ] was preparing to politically neutralize Democratic Alabama Governor ] with an investigation headed by the ].<ref name="Republicanplot">{{cite news | title=Ex-governor says he was target of Republican plot | publisher=] |date= June 26, 2007 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-07-01}}</ref><ref name="TimeRoveNamed">{{cite news | url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1627427,00.html | title=Rove Named in Alabama Controversy | publisher=] |date= June 1, 2007 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-07-01}}</ref> | |||
{{USC|28|541}}</ref> In the event of a vacancy, the ] is authorized to appoint an interim U.S. attorney. Before March 9, 2006, such interim appointments expired after 120 days, if a presidential appointment had not been approved by the Senate. Vacancies that persisted beyond 120 days were filled through interim appointments made by the ] for the district of the vacant office.<ref name="Title28 Section 546 before Patriot">{{USC|28|546}} (U.S. Code prior to amendments of the USA PATRIOT Act, as of the retrieval date March 15, 2007.)</ref> | |||
The ], signed into law March 9, 2006, amended the law for the interim appointment of U.S. attorneys by deleting two provisions: (a) the 120-day maximum term for the attorney general's interim appointees, and (b) the subsequent interim appointment authority of ]. With the revision, an interim appointee can potentially serve indefinitely (though still removable by the President), if the president declines to nominate a U.S. attorney for a vacancy, or the Senate either fails to act on a presidential nomination, or rejects a nominee that is different than the interim appointee. | |||
Siegelman was convicted of 7 of the 35 counts in the 2006 trial (all charges were dismissed in the 2005 trial). Siegelman defenders point out that over 100 charges were thrown out by three different judges, and the investigating US Attorney was the wife of his political opponent.<ref name="Republicanplot"/> Another Republican activist, lawyer Dana Jill Simpson of Rainsville, Ala., filed a sworn statement saying that she was on a Republican campaign conference call in 2002 when she heard ] tell other campaign workers not to worry about Siegelman because Canary's "girls" and "Karl" would make sure the Justice Department pursued the Democrat so he was not a political threat in the future.<ref name="Republicanplot"/> "Canary's girls" included his wife, ], who is ] for ]. | |||
On June 14, 2007, President Bush signed a bill into law that re-instated the 120-day term limit on interim attorneys appointed by the attorney general.<ref name="Help Wanted"/> | |||
On June 28, 2007, Siegelman was sentenced by ] to 88 months in federal prison, 500 hours of community service, and will be forced to pay $50,000 in fines and $181,000 in restitution.<ref></ref> An appeal bond was denied, which meant that Siegelman was taken into immediate custody. After his jail sentence is served, Siegelman will be released on supervised leave. | |||
Siegelman defenders noted this is unusual because, for example, former Alabama Governor ], a Republican, was found guilty in state court of personally pocketing $200,000. And state prosecutors sought probation, not jail time, in the Hunt case.<ref name="Republicanplot"/> | |||
"Congressional committees ought to investigate what in the world went on in this case," said Grant Woods, a Republican former attorney general of Arizona.<ref name="Republicanplot"/> The '']'' noted, "The United States attorneys scandal has made clear that partisan politics is a driving force in the Bush Justice Department," and "There is reason to believe prosecution may have been a political hit, intended to take out the state’s most prominent Democrat, a serious charge that has not been adequately investigated."<ref name="InvestNYTimes">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/opinion/30sat2.html?ex=1340856000&en=6522ac53b9fc2a90&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss | title=Questions About a Governor’s Fall | publisher=] |date= June 30, 2007 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-06-29}}</ref> Further, "We hope that the appeals court that hears Mr. Siegelman’s case will give it the same hard look that another appeals court recently gave the case of ]. Ms. Thompson, a low-level employee in a Democratic administration in Wisconsin, was found to have been wrongly convicted of corruption by another United States attorney."<ref name="InvestNYTimes"/> | |||
===Prosecution of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht === | |||
US Attorney ] was known for her high-profile prosecutions of prominent democrats such as Sheriff Pete DeFazio, the mayor Tom Murphy, and a County Judge, Joseph Jaffe. She indicted the celebrity coroner ] on a raft of charges, including what his lawyers say was $3.96 worth of faxes, and $1,778.55 worth of gasoline and mileage bills charged to the state.<ref>http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/alleged_political_prosecution.php "Allegedly Political Prosecution Ends in Hung Jury," Talking Points Memo, April 9, 2008</ref> | |||
====First Federal Trial of United States vs. Dr. Cyril Wecht==== | |||
On January 28, 2008, the federal trial against Dr. Cyril Wecht began. The court motions and proceedings documented the controversy that were prevalent throughout the trial. Prior to the trial beginning, the defense team twice appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to have the district judge selected to preside over the trial removed. In the first appeal's court decision, the judge panel ruled 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the judge. <ref name='Pittsburgh judge will remain on Wecht case'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Jason Cato | title=Pittsburgh judge will remain on Wecht Case | date=13th April 2007 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/wecht/trial/s_502381.html}}</ref> | |||
In the subsequent proceeding, the appeals body reaffirmed the previous opinion. | |||
Speculation amassed that the prosecution of Dr. Wecht was politically motivated since he was a prominent Democrat in the Pittsburgh area and the announcement of the initial indictment was close to the election date of 2006. The controversy around such charges resulted in Former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, a defense lawyer for Dr. Cyril Wecht, being called to testify before a house panel investigating the US Attorneys' Firing Scandal. Governor Thornburgh testified that he felt the case against Dr. Wecht, a nationally prominent forensic pathologist, ''“would qualify as an ideal target for a Republican U.S. attorney (]) trying to curry favor with a department which demonstrated that if you play by its rules, you will advance.”'' <ref name='Democrats Were Targets in Inquiries, Panel Is Told'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Philip Shenon | title=Democrats Were Targets in Inquiries, Panel Is Told | date=24th October 2007 | publisher= NY Times| url=http:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/washington/24prosecute.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=washington&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin}}</ref> | |||
During the trial of Dr. Wecht, the judge barred the defense from raising the arguments that the case was politically motivated. <ref name='Thornburgh 'disappointed' by decision in Wecht case'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= David Brown | title=Thornburgh 'disappointed' by decision in Wecht case | date=27th November 2007 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/wecht/trial/s_539964.html}}</ref> Even though neither the defense nor the prosecution were able to raise the speculation that the case was politically motivated during the trial, jurors informed reporters after the trial that they felt by the close of the trial that the case against Dr. Wecht was politically motivated. <ref name='FBI's calls upset jurors in Wecht trial'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Carl Prine | title=FBI's calls upset jurors in Wecht trial | date=11th April 2008 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_561792.html}}</ref> | |||
In addition to the controversy around the case being politically motivated, controversy amassed around the credibility of the lead FBI Investigator on the case, Brad Orsini. Agent Orsini had previous disciplinary actions against him that included writing other agents' initials on witness interview reports and signing agents' names to chain-of-custody forms and evidence labels. Dr. Wecht's defense team argue successfully for the agent's personal records to be unsealed and attempted to use the information within the records to argue for the exclusion of evidence obtained by Agent Orsini during the investigation. The attempts by Dr. Wecht's defense team proved unsuccessful. <ref name='FBI Agent in Wecht case scrutinized in court'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Jason Cato | title=FBI Agent in Wecht case scrutinized in court | date=19th September 2007 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/wecht/trial/s_528196.html}}</ref> The prosecution opted not to call Agent Orsini or any other investigator as a witness during the trial of Dr. Wecht. | |||
The judge attempted to seat an anonymous jury (an action usually reserved only for cases in which jurors' lives may be threatened such as in an organized crime case). After motions from the defense and news media contested the judge's decision, the judge relented and dismissed the request for the seating of an anonymous jury. <ref name='Judge relents on anonymous jury in Wecht case'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Jason Cato | title=Judge relents on anonymous jury in Wecht case | date=21st December 2007 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/wecht/trial/s_543950.html}}</ref> | |||
Roughly two weeks prior to the start of the trial proceedings, the prosecution attempted to have 43 of out of the 84 counts against Wecht dismissed without prejudice, yet were overruled by the judge that dismissed the charges with prejudice, which bars the charges from being refiled against Dr. Wecht. <ref name='Judge approves dismissal of some Wecht charges'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Jason Cato | title=Judge approves dismissal of some Wecht charges | date=4th January 2008 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/wecht/trial/s_545883.html}}</ref> | |||
The prosecution's case lasted for twenty four days. Upon the prosecution resting their case, the defense rested without calling a single witness to counter the prosecution's case or witnesses presented. After eleven days of deliberation, the case ended with the jury informing the court for a second time that a decision could not be reached and the judge declaring a mistrial. In response to the judge's decision, the prosecution immediately informed the court they planned to retry Dr. Wecht. <ref name='Wecht trial over; feds to try again'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Jason Cato | title=Wecht trial over; feds to try again | date=8th April 2008 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_561264.html}}</ref> | |||
====Aftermath of First Federal Trial of United States vs. Dr. Cyril Wecht==== | |||
Since the mistrial, jurors in the first case against Dr. Wecht have raised concern to reporters about FBI agents contacting them since the trial to schedule meetings with the US Attorney ]. <ref name='FBI's calls upset jurors in Wecht trial'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Carl Prine | title=FBI's calls upset jurors in Wecht trial | date=11th April 2008 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_561792.html}}</ref> When the contact of the jurors by the FBI became public, Dr. Wecht's lawyers filed a motion requesting how the FBI, members of the prosecutor's team, were able to locate the jurors after the trial since the district judge in the case had ruled at the start of the trial that the jurors' names were not to be recorded by either the prosecution team or the defense team. <ref name='Sources of Wecht jury names sought'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Jason Cato | title=Sources of Wecht jury names sought | date=15th April 2008 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_562381.html}}</ref> Public concern has risen concerning the case which resulted in Representative Mike Doyle and Representative John Conyers Jr., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, providing statements concerning the prosecution's tactics in the aftermath of the first trial. | |||
<blockquote> | |||
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS - "I am deeply troubled by reports of FBI agents contacting former jurors who failed to convict Dr. Wecht. Whether reckless or intended, it is simply common sense that such contacts can have a chilling effect on future juries in this and other cases. When added to the troubling conduct of this prosecution, there is the appearance of a win-at-all-costs mentality." <ref name='Prosecution's conduct in Wecht case labeled 'troubling''>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Jason Cato | title=Prosecution's conduct in Wecht case labeled 'troubling' | date=12th April 2008 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_562027.html}}</ref> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOYLE "I am very reluctant to intervene in a judicial proceeding - and like most people have watched quietly as the government's case against Cyril Wecht was made - but after seeing news reports from jurors, I have serious concerns about the appropriateness of a retrial. | |||
Specifically, I have concerns about the government's decision to seek a retrial before even interviewing the Wecht trial jurors. Had they done so, they would have learned, as reported by the jury foreman, that a majority of the jurors were voting not guilty on the charges and that many had come to the conclusion that the case was politically motivated. | |||
It also concerns me greatly that the FBI contacted jurors at their homes to request interviews about why they deadlocked. That would be intimidating to just about anyone. | |||
If what is being reported is true, it is my intention to contact the Attorney General's office to ask him to review this case to determine whether justice would be served and taxpayers' money well spent by seeking a retrial." <ref name='Prosecution's conduct in Wecht case labeled 'troubling''>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Jason Cato | title=Prosecution's conduct in Wecht case labeled 'troubling' | date=12th April 2008 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_562027.html}}</ref> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
Public outcry against the continuation of the government's case against Dr. Wecht has continued since the outcome of the first trial. The op-eds in both local papers, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, have both repeatedly called repeatedly for the trial to be dismissed. In response to the negative press coverage, Assistant US Attorney Stalling filed in a government response to the defense team's request to delay the start of the second trial that the government may seek an out-of-town jury to oversee the second trial. <ref name='Prosecution says Wecht retrial needs 'outsiders''>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Jason Cato | title=Prosecution says Wecht retrial needs 'outsiders' | date=16th April 2008 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune-Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_562599.html}}</ref> | |||
On April 12th, 2008, 33 prominent leaders in the Pittsburgh community sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan requesting that the prosecution dismiss the indictment against Dr. Wecht. Shortly after the press release of this letter, Senator Arlen Spector also publicly recommended against a retrial for Dr. Wecht. <ref name='Open Letter Calling for Reconsideration of Wecht Retrial'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Paul Kiel | title=Open Letter Calling for Reconsideration of Wecht Retrial | date=16th April 2008 | publisher= Talking Points Memo| url=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wecht-retrial-letter/}}</ref> The list of individuals who signed onto the letter include prominent members of both the Allegheny Republican and Democratic Party, 9 members of the Allegheny County Council, the former Allegheny County Executive who oversaw Dr. Wecht as county coroner during the indictment period; one of the former U.S. Attorneys for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the position that US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan no holds); current and former members of the United States Congress, and many prominent lawyers and other members of the Allegheny County community. <ref name='Open Letter Calling for Reconsideration of Wecht Retrial'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Paul Kiel | title=Open Letter Calling for Reconsideration of Wecht Retrial | date=16th April 2008 | publisher= Talking Points Memo| url=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wecht-retrial-letter/}}</ref> The complete list is as follows: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
Edward Abes, Treasurer of the Allegheny County Democratic Party; | |||
James Burns, Chair of the Allegheny County Democratic Party; | |||
Nicolas Cafardi, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Duquesne University School of Law; | |||
John Cleary and member of Allegheny County Council; | |||
Ronald Davenport Sr., Chairman of Sheridan Broadcasting Corporation; | |||
John P. Defazio, member of Allegheny County Council; | |||
James R. Ellenbogen, member of Allegheny County Council; | |||
Patrick Fagan, Executive Secretary of Allegheny County Labor Council; | |||
Michael J. Finnerty, member of Allegheny County Council; | |||
Richard Fitzgerald, Chairman of Allegheny County Council; | |||
Dan B. Frankel, Pennsylvania State Representative for the 23rd District; | |||
Nicholas W. Futules, member of Allegheny County Council; | |||
Amanda Green, member of Allegheny County Council; | |||
William Greem, Senior Partner of William J. Green & Associates; | |||
Kenneth C. Greiner, Business Manager of Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union 12; | |||
Donald J. Guter, Dean of Duquesne University School of Law; | |||
Melissa Hart, Former Member of the United States Congress; | |||
Heather Heidelbaugh, Esquire; | |||
Elsie Hillman, Former Chair of Republican Party of Allegheny County; | |||
Billy Jackson, Filmmaker; | |||
Jerry Johnson, Former U.S. Attorney of the Western District of Pennsylvania from 1981 to 1989; | |||
Louis Kendrick, Former Pittsburgh City Councilman; | |||
Bob Macey, member of the Allegheny County Council; | |||
John McIntire, WQED-TV commentator; | |||
Tom Murphy, Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh from 1994 to 2005; | |||
Ralph R. Reiland, Associate Professor of Economics for Robert Morris University; | |||
William Russell Robinson, member of Allegheny County Council; | |||
Jim Roddey, Chair of Republican Party of Allegheny County and Former Allegheny County Executive; | |||
Evans Rose, Esquire; | |||
June Schulberg, Esquire; | |||
Celeste Taylor, Co-Chair of Black Political Empowerment Program; | |||
James Treher, Retired FBI Special Agent; and | |||
Sala Udin, Former Member of Pittsburgh City Council <ref name='Open Letter Calling for Reconsideration of Wecht Retrial'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Paul Kiel | title=Open Letter Calling for Reconsideration of Wecht Retrial | date=16th April 2008 | publisher= Talking Points Memo| url=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wecht-retrial-letter/}}</ref> </blockquote> | |||
After the prosecution release a letter by one of the jurors stated that the jury was in favor of convicting Dr. Wecht on 14 counts 6-5, five members of the jury from the first trial held a press conference to discuss the jury deliberations on April 28th, 2008. The jurors stated the final split was 8-to-3 in favor of acquittal on 27 counts charging Dr. Wecht with using a county fax machine and the U.S. mail in a scheme to defraud county taxpayers. The jurors confirmed the statements of the juror disclosed in the letter disclosed by the prosecution that they were split 6-to-5 to convict on 14 other allegations that Dr. Wecht charged private clients inflated or bogus travel expenses and that he misappropriated more than $5,000 a year of county resources for personal use. Overall, the five jurors stated they believed that Dr. Wecht made mistakes but that they, the jurors, were not convinced Dr. Wecht meant to cheat taxpayers -- a necessary element to find him guilty. One juror stated during the press conference, ''"We just could not find any intent to defraud in any shape or form. We truly did try. We went through count by count by count. ... It's just time to let everything go." '' These viewpoint seems to demonstrate that the jurors agreed with the defense argument that the actions at issue in the case were civil matters of improper bookkeeping that did not contain the necessary criminal intent or malice needed for the criminal charges. Even with these statements, the prosecution has continued steadfast with their decision to retry Dr. Wecht on the 41 criminal charges. <ref name='Ex-coroner Wecht not a criminal, jurors say'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Jason Cato | title=Ex-coroner Wecht not a criminal, jurors say | date=29th April 2008 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_564787.html}}</ref> | |||
When the five jurors were questioned on whether they thought politics drove the prosecution, an argument defense lawyers were prohibited from making during the trial, they responded that they did view it as an impact on the decision in the case on part of the prosecution. One juror stated to the press, ''"I don't know if they were political or not, but the motivation was definitely less than pure."'' The jurors then questioned what seemed to them to be a one-sided investigation, an excessive amount of court documents that seemed more about ''"quantity than quality,"'' and prosecution witnesses -- including a nun -- who were sympathetic to the defense. The nun, Sister Grace Ann Geibel, the former president of Carlow University, disputed a government claim that Dr. Wecht traded corpses from the county morgue to Carlow in exchange for free lab space to work on private cases. <ref name='Ex-coroner Wecht not a criminal, jurors say'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Jason Cato | title=Ex-coroner Wecht not a criminal, jurors say | date=29th April 2008 | publisher= Pittsburgh Tribune Review| url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_564787.html}}</ref> | |||
The second trial was expected to start in May 27, 2008; however on May 8th, a three panel judge body of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals composed of Judges ], ] and ] issued an indefinite stay in the trial proceedings. The stay is to provide the Third Circuit Court of Appeals time to review an appeal on the motion for dismissal by the defense that was denied by the district judge. The motion for argues that Wecht can not be retried due to double jeopardy as a result of the judge not following federal procedures. The procedures violated were that the judge failed to poll jurors individually to ensure they were, in fact, deadlocked, failed to ask the attorneys if they consented to a mistrial, failed to show the attorneys the final note from the jurors that said they were "essentially" deadlocked, and failed to question the jury foreman. Wecht's attorneys also argued in their motion that the judge acted inappropriately by asking the prosecution -- while the first jury was still present -- if it would retry Dr. Wecht. <ref name='Court puts indefinite stay on Wecht trial'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= Paula Reed Ward | title=Court puts indefinite stay on Wecht trial | date=8th May 2008 | publisher= Pittsburgh Post Gazette| url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08130/880428-85.stm}}</ref> | |||
==Law references == | |||
Part of the governing federal law for appointing United States Attorneys. | |||
'''Statute, prior to March 9, 2006 USA PATRIOT ACT Re-authorization Act's amendments, and after June 14, 2007, when S.214 was signed into law'''<ref name='White-House-Press Release-2007-06-14'/> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
'''United States Code, Title 28 § 546. Vacancies''' | |||
:(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant. | |||
:(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent. | |||
:(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of— | |||
::(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or | |||
::(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section. | |||
:(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.<ref name="Title28 Section546 before Patriot"> | |||
{{USC|28|546}} (U.S. Code prior to amendments of the USA PATRIOT Act, as of the retrieval date March 15, 2007.) | |||
</ref> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
:{{UnitedStatesCode|28|546}} (2000 ed., Supp IV). | |||
'''] reauthorization''' | |||
<blockquote>'''SEC. 502. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.''' | |||
Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection: | |||
'(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.'<ref name="USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, § 502"> | |||
{{cite web | |||
| title = H.R.3199 USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 | |||
| work = THOMAS | |||
| publisher = Library of Congress | |||
| url = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03199: | |||
| format = | |||
| doi = | |||
| accessdate =2007-03-24}} | |||
</ref> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
'''Statute from March 9, 2006 through June 14, 2007'''<ref name='White-House-Press Release-2007-06-14'/> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
'''United States Code, Title 28 § 546. Vacancies''' | |||
:(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant. | |||
:(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent. | |||
:(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
:28 U.S.C. § 546 (2007). (Note that published versions of the United States Code usually run two years behind recent legislation.) | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
{{Portal|United States|Politics|Law|2000s}} | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | *] | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] (ACORN) | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
{{Reflist|30em}} | |||
<!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags--> | |||
{{reflist|2}} | |||
==References and external links== | ==References and external links== | ||
{{External links|section|date=September 2017}} | |||
{{sisterlinks}} | {{sisterlinks}} | ||
* | |||
'''Released Administration documents''' | |||
*{{cite news|first=Marissa |last=Taylor |author2=Margaret Talev |title=A Q&A for the U.S. Attorneys saga |date=2007-06-18 |publisher=McClatchy Newspapers |url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/130/story/16904.html |work=McClatchy Washington Bureau |access-date=2007-06-20 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080602015427/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/130/story/16904.html |archive-date=June 2, 2008 }} | |||
* {{See|Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents}} | |||
*''The Washington Post'' in-depth coverage site on firings: {{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2007/03/05/LI2007030500666.html|title=Special Reports: U.S. Attorney Firings Investigation | |||
|newspaper=The Washington Post| date=2007-03-05| access-date=2010-05-01}} | |||
* . Some of the pdfs released by the House are text-searchable. However, the 3,000 pages released on 3/19/07 are not. . | |||
* ''The Wall Street Journal'' (review of the most significant of the emails). | |||
* |
* Allegra Hartley ''U.S. News & World Report'' April 18, 2007. | ||
* . McClatchy Newspapers. | |||
'''U.S. House and Senate Judiciary committees and hearings''' | |||
* {{See|Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings}} | |||
* {{cite web|url=http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2516 | |||
|title=Is the DOJ Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys? | |||
|publisher=] hearing ], ]}} | |||
* {{cite web|url=http://judiciary.house.gov/markup.aspx?ID=153 | |||
|publisher= ] Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law | |||
|title=Consideration of issuing subpoenas to former United States Attorneys | |||
|date=], ]}} | |||
'''Hearings and press conferences: video recordings''' | |||
* | |||
'''Commentary, analysis, time lines''' | |||
*{{See|Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline}} | |||
* {{cite news | first=Marissa | last=Taylor | coauthors= Margaret Talev | title=A Q&A for the U.S. Attorneys saga | date=June 18, 2007 | publisher=McClatchy Newspapers | url =http://www.mcclatchydc.com/130/story/16904.html | work =McClatchy Washington Bureau | pages = | accessdate = 2007-06-20 | language = }} | |||
* Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas ''Newsweek,'' June 4, 2007. | |||
* {{cite news | first=Stuart M. | last=Gerson | coauthors= | title=Inside the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys Controversy | date=March 14, 2007 | publisher=Washington Post Companies | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html | work =Washington Post Live Online (discussion transcript) | pages = | accessdate = 2007-05-29 | language = }} Stuart Gerson was Clinton's Acting Attorney General, in 1993, a holdover from G.H.W.Bush administration, in office until Janet Reno was confirmed. | |||
* ''Washington Post'' in-depth coverage site on firings: {{cite web | |||
|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2007/03/05/LI2007030500666.html | |||
|title=Special Reports: U.S. Attorney Firings Investigation | |||
|publisher=WashingtonPost}} | |||
* ''Wall Street Journal'' (review of the most significant of the emails). | |||
* Allegra Hartley ''U.S. News and World Report'' April 18, 2007. | |||
'''Articles and books''' | |||
* {{cite news | |||
|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801880.html | |||
|author=Eggen, Dan | |||
|title=Prosecutor Firings Not Political, Gonzales Says | |||
|work=] | |||
|date=], ] | |||
|pages=Page A02}} | |||
;Articles and books | |||
{{refbegin}} | |||
* Eisenstein, James. ''Counsel for the United States: U.S. Attorneys in the Political and Legal Systems.'' Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. 1978. | * Eisenstein, James. ''Counsel for the United States: U.S. Attorneys in the Political and Legal Systems.'' Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. 1978. | ||
* Iglesias, David with Davin Seay. ''In Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked the Bush Administration.'' Hoboken, New Jersey. Wiley, 2008. {{ISBN|978-0-470-26197-2}}. | |||
* {{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/washington/17justice.html|author=Johnston, David|title=Justice Dept. Names New Prosecutors, Forcing Some Out|work=The New York Times|date=January 17, 2007}} | |||
* {{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030801087.html|title=Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys|author1=Kane, Paul |author2=Dan Eggen|newspaper=The Washington Post | |||
|date=March 9, 2007 |pages=Page A01}} Article on the hearings. | |||
*{{cite news|title=Dems Seek Testimony From Fired Attorneys|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna17398245|access-date=4 December 2015|agency=NBC News}} | |||
*McKay, John. . Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 31, p. 265, 2008 | |||
* {{cite news |title=Justice aide resigns over prosecutor firings|author=Vicini, James|date=March 13, 2007|agency=Reuters}} Wire article on Congressional supoenas issued to attorneys. | |||
* Whitford, Andrew B. "Bureaucratic Discretion, Agency Structure, and Democratic Responsiveness: The Case of the United States Attorneys." ''Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,'' Vol. 12, No. 1: 3-27 (2002). Public Management Research Association. | |||
{{refend}} | |||
;US Attorneys controversy references | |||
* {{cite news|url=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_011707D.shtml | |||
<!-- this section may be redundant --> | |||
|author=Johnston, David | |||
* | |||
|title=Justice Dept. Names New Prosecutors, Forcing Some Out | |||
* ''ePluribus Media'' | |||
|work=New York Times | |||
|date=], ]}} | |||
{{Presidency of George W. Bush}} | |||
* {{cite news | |||
|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030801087.html?nav=most_emailed | |||
|title=Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys | |||
|author=Kane, Paul and Dan Eggen | |||
|work=Washington Post | |||
|date=], ] |pages=Page A01}} Article on the hearings. | |||
* {{cite news |author=Kelman, Laurie | |||
|title=Dems Seek Testimony From Fired Attorneys | |||
|work=Washington Post | |||
|publisher=] | |||
|date=], ]}} | |||
*{{cite news|url=http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002657.php | |||
|author=Kiel, Paul | |||
|title=BREAKING: House Committee to Subpoena Ousted Prosecutors | |||
|publisher=TPMmuckraker.com (news blog) | |||
|date=], ]}} | |||
*{{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070112-9999-1n12lam.html | |||
|author=Thornton, Kelly and Onell R. Soto | |||
|title=Job performance said to be behind White House firing | |||
|work=]'' | |||
|date=], ]}} | |||
* {{cite news |title=Justice aide resigns over prosecutor firings | |||
|author=Vicini, James | |||
|date=], ] | |||
|publisher=]}} Wire article on Congressional supoenas issued to attorneys. | |||
*Murray Waas. ''National Journal'', May 10, 2007. | |||
* Whitford, Andrew B. "Bureaucratic Discretion, Agency Structure,and Democratic Responsiveness: The Case of the United States Attorneys." ''Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,'' Vol. 12, No. 1: 3-27 (2002). Public Management Research Association. | |||
'''US Attorneys controversy references''' | |||
<!-- this section may be redundant --> | |||
* ''ePluribus Media'' | |||
* ''Talking Points Memo Muckracker'' | |||
* ''McClatchy Washington Bureau,'' McClatchy Newspapers. | |||
* ''Washington Post'' | |||
<!-- commented out -- need to check the MCclatcy site to re-find the new address for this page - as of June 18, 2007 - - | |||
* McClatchy Newspapers | |||
end comment --> | |||
* HavenWorks.com | |||
* ''New York Times'' | |||
* ''ePluribus Media'' | |||
<!-- check for Wall Street Journal and LA Times summaries --> | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 23:49, 9 November 2024
George W. Bush administration controversy For the dismissal of U.S. attorneys in 2017, see 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys.Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy |
---|
Overview |
Articles |
G. W. Bush administration |
Officials involved
|
Officials who resigned
|
Dismissed U.S. attorneys |
List |
U.S. Congress |
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 110th Congress
|
U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary 110th Congress
|
| ||
---|---|---|
Business and personal
46th Governor of Texas 43rd President of the United States
Tenure
Policies Appointments Presidential campaigns |
||
On December 7, 2006, the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice ordered the midterm dismissal of seven United States attorneys. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. attorney positions for political advantage. The allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters. The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed", and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions". In July 2010, the Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining the firing was inappropriately political but not criminal, observing that "evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."
Issues in brief
By tradition, all U.S. attorneys are asked to resign at the start of a new administration. The new President may elect to keep or remove any U.S. attorney. They are traditionally replaced, collectively, only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. attorneys hold a political office, in which the president nominates candidates to office, the Senate confirms and, consequently, they serve at the pleasure of the president. When a new president is from a different political party, typically almost all of the resignations are eventually accepted and the positions are then filled by newly confirmed appointees, typically from the new president's party. While U.S. attorneys are political appointees, however, it is essential to their effectiveness that they are politically impartial in deciding which cases to prosecute and in arguing those cases before judges and juries with diverse views.
Some U.S. senators were concerned about a provision in the 2006 re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act that eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of U.S. attorneys made by the United States attorney general to fill vacancies. The revised USA PATRIOT Act permitted the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without a term limit in office, and avoid a confirming vote by the Senate. The change in the law undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate and gave the attorney general greater appointment powers than the president, since the president's U.S. attorney appointees are required to be confirmed by the Senate and those of the attorney general did not require confirmation.
The Senate was concerned that in dismissing the seven U.S. attorneys which had been confirmed, the administration planned to fill the vacancies with its own choices, bypassing Senate confirmation and the traditional consultation with senators in the selection process. Congress rescinded this provision on June 14, 2007, and President Bush promptly signed the bill into law.
Administration rationale unclear
See also: Inspector General Report and special prosecutor, Carol Lam, Rick Renzi, and Paul K. CharltonThe reasons for the dismissal of each individual U.S. attorney were unclear. Two suggested motivations were that the administration wanted to make room for U.S. attorneys who would be more sympathetic to the administration's political agenda, and the administration wanted to advance the careers of promising conservatives. Critics said that the attorneys were fired for failing to prosecute Democratic politicians, for failing to prosecute claims of election fraud that would hamper Democratic voter registration as retribution for prosecuting Republican politicians, or for failing to pursue adult obscenity prosecutions. The administration and its supporters said that the attorneys were dismissed for job-performance reasons "related to policy, priorities and management", and that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. However, at least six attorneys had recently received positive evaluations of their performance from the Department of Justice. In September 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General's investigation concluded that the dismissals were politically motivated and improper.
The Bush administration issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings. The origin and evolution of the list of attorneys to be dismissed remained unclear. In response to the Inspector General's report, in September 2008 Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Nora Dannehy as special prosecutor to determine if administration officials had perjured themselves in testimony to Congress. Her investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with perjury.
Politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice
Attorney General Gonzales, in a confidential memorandum dated March 1, 2006, delegated authority to senior DOJ staff Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson to hire and dismiss political appointees and some civil service positions.
On May 2, 2007, the Department of Justice announced two separate investigations into hirings conducted by Goodling: one by the department's Inspector General, and a second by the Office of Professional Responsibility. In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, Goodling stated that she had "crossed the line" and broken civil service laws regulating hiring for civil service positions, and had improperly weighed political factors in assessing applicants.
According to a January 2009 Justice Department report, investigators found that Bradley Schlozman, as interim head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, "favored applicants with conservative political or ideological affiliations and disfavored applicants with civil rights or human rights experience whom he considered to be overly liberal". The positions under consideration were not political, but career, for which the political and ideological views of candidates are not to be considered, according to federal law and guidelines.
In a letter of May 30, 2007, to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and Counsel for the Office of Professional Responsibility confirmed that they were expanding their investigation beyond "the removals of United States Attorneys" to include "DOJ hiring and personnel decisions" by Goodling and other Justice Department employees.
Dismissed attorneys and elections
See also: Pete Domenici, Heather Wilson, and Bradley SchlozmanThe controversy surrounding the U.S. attorneys dismissals was often linked to elections or voter-fraud issues. Allegations were that some of the U.S. attorneys were dismissed for failing to instigate investigations damaging to Democratic politicians, or for failing to more aggressively pursue voter-fraud cases. Such allegations were made by some of the dismissed U.S. attorneys themselves to suggest reasons they may have been dismissed. The background to the allegations is the recent tendency for elections in parts of the United States to be very close; an election outcome can be affected by an announced investigation of a politician. It is explicit policy of the Department of Justice to avoid bringing voter-related cases during an election for this reason. In September 2008, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice concluded that some of the dismissals were motivated by the refusal of some of the U.S. attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases during the 2006 election cycle.
Fallout
By mid-September 2007, nine senior staff of the Department of Justice associated with the controversy had resigned. The most prominent resignations include:
- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
- Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty;
- Acting Associate Attorney General William W. Mercer resigned from the acting office prior to Senate confirmation hearings for the same position, and returned to his post as U.S. Attorney for Montana (he held dual positions);
- Chief of staff for the Attorney General Kyle Sampson
- Chief of Staff for the Deputy Attorney General Michael Elston;
- Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Michael A. Battle;
- the subsequently appointed Director to the EOUSA, Bradley Schlozman, also the former acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division;
- the Department of Justice's White House Liaison Monica Goodling
In June 2008, a grand jury was empaneled to consider criminal indictments against officials involved in the firings. The grand jury was presented evidence from ongoing investigations at the Department of Justice Inspector General's office and at the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility.
Inspector General Report and special prosecutor
On September 29, 2008 the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) released a report on the matter that found most of the firings were politically motivated and improper. The next day Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed Nora Dannehy as special prosecutor to decide whether criminal charges should be brought against Gonzales and other officials involved in the firings. The IG's report contained "substantial evidence" that party politics drove a number of the firings, and IG Glenn Fine said in a statement that Gonzales had "abdicated his responsibility to safeguard the integrity and independence of the department." The report itself stopped short of resolving questions about higher White House involvement in the matter, because of what it said were the refusal to cooperate of a number of key players, among them Karl Rove, Senator Pete Domenici and Harriet Miers and because the White House refused to hand over its documents related to the firings.
On July 21, 2010, Dannehy concluded that "there was insufficient evidence to establish that persons knowingly made material false statements to or Congress or corruptly endeavored to obstruct justice" and that no criminal charges would be filed against Sampson or Gonzales.
Replacement of the U.S. attorneys
Initial planning
On January 6, 2005, Colin Newman, an assistant in the White House counsels office, wrote to David Leitch stating, "Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. 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.'". The email was then forwarded to Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
In reply, Sampson, then Department of Justice counsel to Attorney General John Ashcroft, wrote that it would be "weird to ask them to leave before completing at least a 4-year term", that they "would like to replace 15–20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys" and that the rest "are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc."
In March 2005, Sampson
came up with a checklist. He rated each of the U.S. Attorneys with criteria that appeared to value political allegiance as much as job performance. He recommended retaining 'strong U.S. Attorneys who have ... exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.' He suggested 'removing weak U.S. Attorneys who have ... chafed against Administration initiatives'.
Sampson wrote in January 2006 to Miers that he recommended that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. attorneys, and that by limiting the number of attorneys "targeted for removal and replacement" it would "mitigat the shock to the system that would result from an across-the-board firing".
On February 12, 2006, Monica Goodling sent a spreadsheet of each U.S. attorney's political activities and memberships in conservative political groups to senior Administration officials, with the comment "This is the chart that the AG requested".
Sampson strongly urged using changes to the law governing U.S. attorney appointments to bypass Congressional confirmation, writing in a September 17, 2006 memo to Miers:
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 ... 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.
Implementation: the U.S. attorney removal list
In October 2006, President George W. Bush told Alberto Gonzales that he had received complaints that some U.S. attorneys had not pursued certain voter-fraud investigations. The complaints came from Republican officials, who demanded fraud investigations into a number of Democratic campaigns.
According to Newsweek, "Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff, developed the list of eight prosecutors to be fired last October—with input from the White House".
On November 27, 2006, Gonzales met with senior advisers to discuss the plan. The Justice Department did not receive White House approval for the firings until early December. As late as December 2, Sampson had written to Michael Elston that the Justice Department was "till waiting for green light from White House" with regards to the firing. Deputy White House Counsel William K. Kelley responded on December 4, 2006, saying, "We're a go for the U.S. Atty plan ... , political, communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."
On December 7, 2006, Justice Department official Michael A. Battle informed seven U.S. attorneys that they were being dismissed.
Although seven attorneys were dismissed on December 7, 2006, subsequent disclosures show that three or more additional attorneys were dismissed under similar circumstances between 2005 and 2006. U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Arkansas had been informed in June 2006 that he was to be replaced, and he resigned, effective December 20, 2006, several days after the public announcement of the appointment of his successor Timothy Griffin.
Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary () | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dismissed attorney |
Effective date of resignation |
Federal district | Replacement | ||
Dismissed December 7, 2006 | |||||
1. | David Iglesias | Dec 19, 2006 | New Mexico | Larry Gomez | |
2. | Kevin V. Ryan | Jan 16, 2007 | Northern California | Scott Schools | |
3. | John McKay | Jan 26, 2007 | Western Washington | Jeffrey C. Sullivan | |
4. | Paul K. Charlton | Jan 31, 2007 | Arizona | Daniel G. Knauss | |
5. | Carol Lam | Feb 15, 2007 | Southern California | Karen Hewitt | |
6. | Daniel Bogden | Feb 28, 2007 | Nevada | Steven Myhre | |
7. | Margaret Chiara | Mar 16, 2007 | Western Michigan | Russell C. Stoddard | |
Others dismissed in 2006 | |||||
1. | Todd Graves | Mar 24, 2006 | Western Missouri | Bradley Schlozman | |
2. | Bud Cummins | Dec 20, 2006 | Eastern Arkansas | Tim Griffin | |
Dismissed in 2005 | |||||
1. | Thomas M. DiBiagio | Jan 2, 2005 | Maryland | Allen F. Loucks | |
2. | Kasey Warner | Jul 2005 | Southern W. Virginia | Charles T. Miller | |
Source: Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys Offices Informed of dismissal January 2006. |
David Iglesias (R) believes he was removed from office at the behest of two New Mexico Republican congressmen when he refused to prosecute state Democratic senators before the November 2006 election.
Kevin Ryan (R) Though described as "loyal to the Bush administration," he was allegedly fired for the possible controversy that negative job performance evaluations might cause if they were released.
John McKay (R) Was given a positive job evaluation 7 months before he was fired. After a close Washington governor's race resulted in a Democratic victory, local Republicans criticized McKay for not investigating allegations of voter fraud.
Paul K. Charlton (R) U.S. Attorney for Arizona, was given a positive job performance evaluation before he was dismissed. He may have been fired because he had started a corruption investigation into Representative Rick Renzi (R-AZ). In September 2006, it became clear that Charlton had launched an investigation of Renzi over a land-swap deal. Sampson subsequently included Charlton on a list of U.S. attorneys "we now should consider pushing out." Sampson made the comment in a Sept. 13, 2006, letter to then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers.
Carol Lam (R) U.S. Attorney for California, oversaw the investigation and conviction of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) for corruption in military contracting. Congressman Darrell Issa complained that Lam was not prosecuting illegal border crossings aggressively enough. On December 7, 2006, Michael A. Battle, Director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, called Lam and notified her that she must resign no later than January 31, 2007. Battle instructed Lam to explain that she had decided to pursue other opportunities. Battle insisted that Lam had to depart in weeks, not months, and these orders were "coming from the very highest levels of government". Lam submitted her resignation January 16, 2007, effective February 15.
Daniel Bogden (R) U.S. Attorney for Nevada was investigating Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons (R) for bribery, when he was fired without explanation after seven years because of a vague sense that a "stronger leader" was needed. His loyalty to President Bush was questioned by Sampson.
Margaret Chiara (R) U.S. Attorney for Michigan was given a positive job evaluation in 2005, and told she was being removed to "make way" for another individual. On March 23, 2007, The New York Times reported that Chiara was told by a senior Justice Department official that she was being removed to make way for a new attorney that the Bush administration wanted to groom. "To say it was about politics may not be pleasant, but at least it is truthful," Chiara said. "Poor performance was not a truthful explanation."
Todd Graves (R) had been pressed to bring a civil suit against Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) for allegedly failing to crack down on voting fraud. In January 2006, Graves was asked to step down from his job by Michael A. Battle, then Director of the Justice department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. Graves had clashed with the Department of Justice's civil rights division over a federal lawsuit involving Missouri's voter rolls. The department was pushing for a lawsuit against Missouri, accusing the state of failing to eliminate ineligible people from voter rolls. Graves refused to sign off on the lawsuit, which was subsequently authorized by Graves' successor, Bradley Schlozman (R). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint against Bond over his role in ousting Graves.
Bud Cummins (R) allegedly was asked to leave so Timothy Griffin, an aide to Karl Rove, could have his job. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified that Cummins was removed for no reason except to install a former aide to Karl Rove: 37-year-old Tim Griffin, a former opposition research director for the Republican National Committee. Cummins told the Senate Judiciary Committee "that Mike Elston, the deputy attorney general's top aide, threatened him with retaliation in a phone call if he went public." Emails show that Cummins passed on the warning to some of the other attorneys who were fired.
David Iglesias (R) U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. In 2005 Allen Weh, Chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, complained about Iglesias to a White House aide for Karl Rove, asking that Iglesias be removed. Weh was dissatisfied with Iglesias due in part to his failure to indict New Mexico State Senator Manny Aragon (D) on fraud and conspiracy charges. Then in 2006 Rove personally told Weh "He's gone."
Thomas M. DiBiagio (R) U.S. Attorney for Maryland, stated in March 2007 that he was ousted because of political pressure over public corruption investigations into the administration of then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
Administration testimony contradicted by documents
See also: Bush White House e-mail controversyMembers of Congress investigating the dismissals found that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials appeared to be contradicted by internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remained unclear despite hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and senior Department of Justice staff in congressional committee hearings.
Reactions and congressional investigation
Main articles: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline and Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearingsInitial reaction
The initial reaction was from the senators of the affected states. In a letter to Gonzales on January 9, 2007, Senators Feinstein (D, California) and Leahy (D, Vermont; Chair of the Committee) of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed concern that the confirmation process for U.S. attorneys would be bypassed, and on January 11, they, together with Senator Pryor (D, Arkansas), introduced legislation "to prevent circumvention of the Senate's constitutional prerogative to confirm U.S. Attorneys", called Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, S. 214 and H.R. 580. The initial concern was about the USA PATRIOT Act and the confirmation process, rather than the politicization of the U.S. attorneys.
Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 18. He assured the committee that he did not intend to bypass the confirmation process and denied the firings were politically motivated.
The concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein and Pryor were followed up by hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee called by Senator Schumer (D, New York) in February. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6. He said that the seven were fired for job performance issues and not political considerations; these statements led several of the dismissed attorneys, who had been previously silent, to come forward with questions about their dismissals, partially because their performance reviews prior to their dismissal had been highly favorable.
In subsequent closed-door testimony on April 27, 2007, to the committee, McNulty said that days after the February hearing, he learned that White House officials had not revealed to him White House influence and discussions on creating the list. McNulty in February called Senator Schumer by telephone to apologize for the inaccurate characterization of the firings. McNulty testified that Bud Cummins, the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, was removed to install a former aide to Karl Rove and Republican National Committee opposition research director, Timothy Griffin. Cummins, apparently, "was ousted after Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, intervened on behalf of Griffin".
McNulty's testimony that the attorneys were fired for "performance related issues" caused the attorneys to come forward in protest. There is some evidence that the administration was concerned about the attorneys' going public with complaints prior to this time.
Salon.com reported: "t least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department official knowledgeable about their cases."
Further investigation and resignations
Battle resignation
On March 5, 2007 effective March 16, Michael A. Battle resigned his position of Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA). On March 6, 2007, Gonzales responded to the controversy in an op-ed in USA Today in which he wrote:
To be clear, was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management — what have been referred to broadly as "performance-related" reasons — that seven U.S. attorneys were asked to resign last December ... We have never asked a U.S. attorney to resign in an effort to retaliate against him or her or to inappropriately interfere with a public corruption case (or any other type of case, for that matter). Like me, U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and we all serve at the pleasure of the president. If U.S. attorneys are not executing their responsibilities in a manner that furthers the management and policy goals of departmental leadership, it is appropriate that they be replaced ... While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost my confidence. I hope that this episode ultimately will be recognized for what it is: an overblown personnel matter.
Sampson resignation
On March 12, 2007, Sampson resigned from the Department of Justice.
On March 13, Gonzales stated in a news conference that he accepted responsibility for mistakes made in the dismissal and rejected calls for his resignation that Democratic members of Congress had been making. He also stood by his decision to dismiss the attorneys, saying "I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision". Gonzales admitted that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials, and said that "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood."
Gonzales lost more support when records subsequently challenged some of these statements. Although the Department of Justice released 3,000 pages of its internal communications related to this issue, none of those documents discussed anything related to a performance review process for these attorneys before they were fired. Records released on March 23 showed that on his November 27 schedule "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge".
Executive Privilege claims
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy stated that Congress has the authority to subpoena Justice Department and White House officials including chief political advisor to the president Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. On March 20, President Bush declared in a press conference that his aides would not testify under oath on the matter if subpoenaed by Congress. Bush explained his position saying,
The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served ... I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials ... My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions.
Despite the President's position against aides testifying, on March 21 the House Judiciary Committee authorized the subpoena of five Justice Department officials, and on March 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas as well.
Goodling resignation
Main article: Monica GoodlingSampson's replacement as the attorney general's temporary chief of staff was the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Chuck Rosenberg. Rosenberg initiated a DOJ inquiry into possibly inappropriate political considerations in Monica Goodling's hiring practices for civil service staff. Civil service positions are not political appointments and must be made on a nonpartisan basis. In one example, Jeffrey A. Taylor, former interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to hire a new career prosecutor, Seth Adam Meinero, in the fall of 2006. Goodling judged Meinero too "liberal" and declined to approve the hire. Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency, was serving as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office. Taylor went around Goodling, and demanded Sampson's approval to make the hire. In another example, Goodling removed an attorney from her job at the Department of Justice because she was rumored to be a lesbian, and, further, blocked the attorney from getting other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for. Rules concerning hiring at the Justice Department forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On March 26, 2007, Goodling, who had helped coordinate the dismissal of the attorneys with the White House, took leave from her job as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House. Goodling was set to testify before Congress, but on March 26, 2007, she cancelled her appearance at the congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. On April 6, 2007, Goodling resigned from the Department of Justice.
On April 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution, by a 32–6 vote, authorizing lawyers for the House to apply for a court order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony and authorizing a subpoena for her. On May 11, 2007, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her truthful testimony in the U.S. attorney firings investigation, stating that "Goodling may not refuse to testify, and may not refuse to provide other information, when compelled to do so" before the committee.
Goodling appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, under a limited immunity agreement, and provided to the committee a written statement that she read at the start of her testimony.
In response to questions during the hearing, Goodling stated that she "crossed the line" and broke civil service rules about hiring, and improperly weighed political factors in considering applicants for career positions at the Department of Justice.
Gonzales resignation
A number of members of both houses of Congress publicly said Gonzales should resign, or be fired by Bush. On March 14, 2007, Senator John E. Sununu (R, New Hampshire) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Gonzales' resignation. Sununu cited not only the controversial firings but growing concern over the use of the USA PATRIOT Act and misuse of national security letters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Calls for his ousting intensified after his testimony on April 19, 2007. By May 16, at least twenty-two senators and seven members of the House of Representatives—including Senators Hillary Clinton (D, New York) and Mark Pryor (D, Arkansas)—had called for Gonzales' resignation.
Gonzales submitted his resignation as Attorney General effective September 17, 2007, by a letter addressed to President Bush on August 26, 2007. In a statement on August 27, Gonzales thanked the President for the opportunity to be of service to his country, giving no indication of either the reasons for his resignation or his future plans. Later that day, President Bush praised Gonzales for his service, reciting the numerous positions in Texas government, and later, the government of the United States, to which Bush had appointed Gonzales.
On September 17, 2007, President Bush announced the nomination of ex-judge Michael Mukasey to serve as Gonzales' successor.
Testimony of Sara Taylor: Claims of executive privilege
On July 11, 2007, Sara Taylor, former top aide to Karl Rove, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Throughout Taylor's testimony, she refused to answer many questions, saying "I have a very clear letter from Mr. Fielding. That letter says and has asked me to follow the president's assertion of executive privilege." Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) dismissed the claims and warned Taylor she was "in danger of drawing a criminal contempt of Congress citation". Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) took issue with the claim as well, telling Taylor
You seem to be selective in the use of the presidential privilege. It seems like you're saying that, 'Yes, I'm giving you all the information I can,' when it's self-serving to the White House, but not allowing us to have the information to make independent judgment. Leahy added "I do note your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and, to the best of your knowledge, he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House because it seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved." He also said "It's apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels it does not have to explain itself to anyone, not to the people's representatives in Congress nor to the American people."
In summary, Taylor told the Senate that she
"did not talk to or meet with President Bush about removing federal prosecutors before eight of them were fired", she had no knowledge on whether Bush was involved in any way in the firings, her resignation had nothing to do with the controversy, "she did not recall ordering the addition or deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired", and she refuted the testimony of Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, that she sought "to avoid submitting a new prosecutor, Tim Griffin, through Senate confirmation."
Contempt of Congress charges
On July 11, 2007, as Sara Taylor testified, George Manning, the attorney to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, announced that Miers intended to follow the request of the Bush Administration and not appear before the Committee the following day. Manning stated Miers "cannot provide the documents and testimony that the committee seeks."
On July 17, 2007 Sanchez and Conyers notified White House Counsel Fred Fielding that they were considering the executive privilege claims concerning a "subpoena issued on June 13 to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, to produce documents." They warned, "If those objections are overruled, you should be aware that the refusal to produce the documents called for in the subpoena could subject Mr. Bolten to contempt proceedings". The panel ruled the claims of privilege as invalid on a party-line vote of 7–3.
On July 25, 2007 the United States House Committee on the Judiciary voted along party lines 22–17 to issue citations of Contempt of Congress to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. Committee Republicans voted against the measure, calling it "a partisan waste of time", while Democrats said "this is the moment for Congress to rein in the administration."
On February 14, 2008, the United States House of Representatives voted 223–32 along party lines to pass the contempt resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Bolten and former White House Counsel Miers. Most Republicans staged a walkout during the vote.
Aftermath
Subpoenas and lost emails
See also: Bush White House e-mail controversyWhite House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that some of the emails that had involved official correspondence relating to the firing of attorneys may have been lost because they were conducted on Republican party accounts and not stored properly. "Some official e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake the White House is aggressively working to correct." said Stanzel, a White House spokesman. Stonzel said that they could not rule out the possibility that some of the lost emails dealt with the firing of U.S. attorneys. For example, J. Scott Jennings, an aide to Karl Rove communicated with Justice Department officials "concerning the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released in March, 2007. For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the Republican National Committee, where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher."
CNN reported a larger question concerning the lost e-mails: "Whether White House officials such as political adviser Karl Rove are intentionally conducting sensitive official presidential business via non-governmental accounts to evade a law requiring preservation—and eventual disclosure—of presidential records."
On May 2, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Gonzales compelling the Department of Justice to produce all email from Karl Rove regarding evaluation and dismissal of attorneys that was sent to DOJ staffers, no matter what email account Rove may have used, whether White House, National Republican party, or other accounts, with a deadline of May 15, 2007, for compliance. The subpoena also demanded relevant email previously produced in the Valerie Plame controversy and investigation for the 2003 CIA leak scandal.
In August 2007, Karl Rove resigned without responding to the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena claiming, "I just think it's time to leave."
Appointment of U.S. attorneys and the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization
The president of the United States has the authority to appoint U.S. attorneys, with the consent of the United States Senate, and the president may remove U.S. attorneys from office. In the event of a vacancy, the United States attorney general is authorized to appoint an interim U.S. attorney. Before March 9, 2006, such interim appointments expired after 120 days, if a presidential appointment had not been approved by the Senate. Vacancies that persisted beyond 120 days were filled through interim appointments made by the Federal District Court for the district of the vacant office.
The USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, signed into law March 9, 2006, amended the law for the interim appointment of U.S. attorneys by deleting two provisions: (a) the 120-day maximum term for the attorney general's interim appointees, and (b) the subsequent interim appointment authority of Federal District Courts. With the revision, an interim appointee can potentially serve indefinitely (though still removable by the President), if the president declines to nominate a U.S. attorney for a vacancy, or the Senate either fails to act on a presidential nomination, or rejects a nominee that is different than the interim appointee.
On June 14, 2007, President Bush signed a bill into law that re-instated the 120-day term limit on interim attorneys appointed by the attorney general.
See also
- List of federal political scandals in the United States
- Don Siegelman
- Cyril Wecht
- Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
- Rachel Paulose
Notes
- Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made' The Washington Post, March 14, 2007
- ^ Bowermaster, David (May 9, 2007). "Charges may result from firings, say two former U.S. attorneys". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2022-11-30. Retrieved May 16, 2007.
- ^ Eggen, Dan; Goldstein, Amy (May 14, 2007). "Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 18, 2007.
- Scelfo, Julie (March 15, 2007). "'Quite Unprecedented': Former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White explains why the firing of eight federal prosecutors could threaten the historic independence of federal law-enforcement officials". Newsweek. Retrieved May 28, 2007.
- Eggen, Dan; Kane, Paul (March 14, 2007). "Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made': But Attorney General Defends Firings of Eight U.S. Attorneys". The Washington Post. pp. A01. Retrieved May 28, 2007.
- "Fired U.S. Attorneys". The Washington Post. March 6, 2007.
- Montopoli, Brian (March 14, 2007). "So Is This U.S. Attorney Purge Unprecedented Or Not?". CBS News. Retrieved May 29, 2007.
- Jordan, Lara Jakes (September 15, 2007). "Attorney general bids farewell to Justice: Praises work of department". The Boston Globe. Associated Press. Retrieved September 19, 2007.
- ^ "An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006" (PDF). DOJ Inspector General. pp. 355–358. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-03-02. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
- ^ "Justice Dept. Opts Not to File Charges for Bush-Era U.S. Attorney Firings". Fox News. Associated Press. July 21, 2010.
- "White House and Justice Department begin U.S. Attorney transition" (Press release). Office of the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice. March 14, 2001.
- Gerson, Stuart M. (March 14, 2007). "Inside the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys Controversy". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-29.
- "Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys". McClatchy Newspapers. March 13, 2007 – via realcities.com.
- Marcia Coyle (2007-04-27). "Scandal Over U.S. Attorneys' Firing Could Cloud Other Cases". The National Law Journal.
- Marisa Taylor; Greg Gordon (2007-01-26). "New U.S. attorneys come from Bush's inner circle". McClatchy Newspapers. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007.
- ^ Eggen, Dan (June 17, 2007). "In U.S. Attorney's Offices, Help Wanted: Justice Dept. Seeking Replacements for Departing Temporary Prosecutors". The Washington Post. pp. A04. Retrieved June 17, 2007.
- Morrison, Jane Ann (January 18, 2007). "Bush administration's ouster of U.S. attorneys an insulting injustice". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007. Retrieved April 16, 2007.
- Taylor, Marisa; Gordon, Greg (2007-01-26). "Gonzales appoints political loyalists into vacant U.S. attorneys slots". McClatchy Newspapers. Archived from the original on March 25, 2007.
- Follman, Mark (April 19, 2007). "The U.S. attorneys scandal gets dirty". Salon.com. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
- ^ Gonzales, Alberto R. (March 7, 2007). "They lost my confidence: Attorneys' dismissals were related to performance, not to politics". USA Today. p. A10. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
- Johnston, David (February 25, 2007). "Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Praised in Evaluations". The New York Times. Retrieved January 26, 2009.
- Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (March 17, 2007). "With Shifting Explanations, White House Adds to Storm". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-17.
- "Republican Support for Gonzales Erodes". The New York Times. Associated Press. March 17, 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-17.
- Dan Eggen (March 17, 2007). "Accounts of Prosecutors' Dismissals Keep Shifting". The Washington Post. p. A1. Retrieved 2007-03-17.
- "Gonzales Testifies Before Senate Panel". The Washington Post. Congressional Quarterly Transcript Service. April 19, 2007. Retrieved June 8, 2007.
- Jordan, Lara Jakes (May 15, 2007). "Gonzales: Deputy Was Pointman on Firings". The Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
- Scherer, Michael (2007-05-23). "McNulty hits back at Goodling". Salon. Salon.com. Archived from the original on October 20, 2012. Retrieved 2007-05-25.
- Jordan, Lara Jakes; (Associated Press) (2007-03-29). "Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales on firings". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
- ^ Lichtblau, Eric (2008-09-29). "U.S. appoints special prosecutor". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
- ^ Lipton, Eric; David Johnston (2007-05-03). "Justice Department announces inquiry into its hiring practices". The New York Times. pp. A18. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
- ^ Stout, David (2007-05-23). "Ex-Gonzales Aide Testifies, 'I Crossed the Line'". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
- Cook, Theresa (2009-01-13). "Report Raps Bradley Schlozman, Former Justice Department Official, for Political Bias". ABC News. Retrieved 2009-02-09.
- Eggen, Dan (2007-05-30). "Justice Dept. Widens Firings Probe". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-30.
- Roesler, Richard (2007-05-20). "No evidence of election crime, former U.S. attorney says". The Spokesman Review. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
- "Fired U.S. attorney alleges political pressure". The Dallas Morning News. 2007-02-28. Archived from the original on 2007-05-30. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
- Serrano, Richard (2007-06-06). "Justice Department reportedly bent rules on voter fraud charges". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-01-31.
- ^ Eggen, Dan; Elizabeth Williamson (September 19, 2007). "Democrats May Tie Confirmation to Gonzales Papers". The Washington Post. pp. A10. Retrieved 2007-09-19.
- Jordan, Lara Jakes (June 15, 2007). "Official Close to Attorney Firings Quits". Los Angeles Times.
- Eggen, Dan (June 23, 2007). "Third-in-Command at Justice Dept. Resigns: Mercer to Leave Washington Job but Keep U.S. Attorney's Position in Montana". The Washington Post. pp. A04. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
- Gordon, Greg (2007-08-22). "Justice Department lawyer accused of partisanship resigns". McClatchy Washington Bureau. McClatchy Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-08-28.
- Nizza, Mike (2007-08-27). "Gonzales, a Surprisingly Unexpected Resignation". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-08-27.
- Meyers, Steven Lee (2007-08-27). "Embattled Attorney General Resigns". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-08-27.
- Phillips, Kate (2007-08-27). "Gonzales Is Resigning". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-08-27.
- Lichtblau, Eric (2008-06-17). "Grand Jury Said to Look at Attorneys' Dismissals". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-04-07. Retrieved 2008-06-19.
- "Prosecutor to probe role of politics in attorney firings". Mcclatchydc.com. Archived from the original on 2012-09-03. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
- "An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006". DOJ Inspector General. September 2006. pp. 356–7. Archived from the original on 2020-10-04. Retrieved 2021-07-27.
- Weich. "Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich" (PDF). p. 5.
- David Johnston; Eric Lipton (March 16, 2007). "Rove discussed firing U.S. attorneys earlier than he indicated, e-mails show". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-13.
- ^ Jan Crawford Greenberg (2007-03-15). "E-Mails Show Rove's Role in U.S. Attorney Firings". ABC News.
- Serrano, Richard A. (2007-03-14). "E-mails detail White House plans to oust U.S. attorneys". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-05-21.
- ^ Eggen, Dan; John Solomon (March 13, 2007). "Firings Had Genesis in White House Ex-Counsel Miers First Suggested Dismissing Prosecutors 2 Years Ago, Documents Show". The Washington Post. p. Page A01. Retrieved 2007-03-13.
- Jordan, Laura Jakes (April 13, 2007). "Agency weighed prosecutors' politics". ABC News (AP). Archived from the original on June 16, 2008. Retrieved 2007-05-21.
- Isikoff, Michael (2007-03-19). "Fuel to the Firings". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2007-03-14. Retrieved 2007-03-12.
- Johnston, David and Eric Lipton (2007-03-24). "Gonzales Met With Advisors on Ouster Plan". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
- ^ Lara Jakes Jordan (March 13, 2007). "Gonzales: Prosecutors firings mishandled". Associated Press.
- ^ Hartley, Allegra (2007-03-21). "Timeline: How the U.S. Attorneys Were Fired". U.S. News & World Report. Archived from the original on May 28, 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-26.
- "List of 8 dismissed U.S. prosecutors". Associated Press. March 6, 2007.
- Q & A from Committee for Bud Cummins Archived June 26, 2008, at the Wayback Machine (no date). United States House Committee on the Judiciary Retrieved May 18, 2007. (Written responses by Bud Cummins to committee interrogatories, post-hearing.)
- Taylor, Marisa. "Political interference is alleged in the sacking of a U.S. attorney", McClatchy Newspapers - February 28, 2007
- Dolan, Maura (March 22, 2007). "Bush loyalist was added to purge list late". Los Angeles Times. pp. B1, B9. story continued on page B9
- David Bowermaster (February 7, 2007). "McKay got good review 7 months before ouster Archived 2007-05-16 at the Wayback Machine," Seattle Times
- Blumenthal, Max (2007-03-20). "The Porn Plot Against Prosecutors", The Nation, Retrieved 2007-03-21.
- Hutcheson, Ron (2007-03-13). "Emails detail plans for firing U.S. attorneys". McClatchy Newspapers. Retrieved 2007-03-14.
- Blumenthal, Max (2007-03-20). "The Porn Plot Against Prosecutors". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2019-03-22. Retrieved 2019-03-22.
- "Lam's Legacy". San Diego Union-Tribune. January 21, 2007. Archived from the original on 2018-11-15. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs (2007-03-06). "Letter from Justice Department to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Regarding Performance of Carol Lam". ThinkProgress.org. Archived from the original on 2007-03-23.
- ^ "Lam's responses to questions from House Judiciary Committee" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2019-03-22.
- 'Loyalty' to Bush and Gonzales Was Factor in Prosecutors' Firings, E-Mail Shows
- "A U.S. Attorney's Story". The Atlantic. 20 April 2009. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21.
- Steinhauer, Jennifer. (2007-05-30) STATEHOUSE JOURNAL – A Rocky Start for Nevada's Chief – NYTimes.com. Select.nytimes.com. Retrieved on 2011-01-09.
- Claims against Gibbons revealed – News – ReviewJournal.com. Lvrj.com. Retrieved on 2011-01-09.
- Lipton, Eric (March 23, 2007). "U.S. Attorney in Michigan Disputes Reason for Removal", The New York Times, Retrieved 2007-03-23.
- Lipton, Eric (March 23, 2007). "U.S. Attorney in Michigan Disputes Reason for Removal". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-23.
- "Michigan U.S. attorney announces resignation". AP. March 27, 2007. Archived from the original on March 12, 2007.
- "The Scales Of Justice". NATIONAL JOURNAL - News.nationaljournal.com. 2007-05-31. Archived from the original on 2007-06-04. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
- ^ Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen. "Number of Fired Prosecutors Grows: Dismissals Began Earlier Than Justice Dept. Has Said". washingtonpost.com, May 10, 2007; accessed April 24, 2015/
- Todd Graves steps down as U.S. Attorney Archived 2007-08-09 at the Wayback Machine, usdoj.gov, March 10, 2006; retrieved May 8, 2007.
- Greg Gordon (May 4, 2007). "GOP sought to suppress votes in Missouri, critics say: Missouri is among states where alleged efforts to dampen Democratic turnout were focused", kansascity.com; accessed April 24, 2015.
- Helling, Dave (September 29, 2008). "Group files ethics complaint against Bond". The Kansas City Star Prime Buzz. Archived from the original on October 1, 2008. Retrieved February 21, 2017.
- ^ Kevin Johnson (2007-02-06). "Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job". USA Today.
- Kevin Johnson (2007-02-06). "Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job". USA Today.
- Eric Lichtblau, Eric Lipton (2009-08-11). "E-Mail Reveals Rove's Key Role in '06 Dismissals". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-14.
- David Johnston (2007-02-16). "White House Is Reported to Be Linked to a Dismissal". The New York Times.
- Robert Schmidt (2007-03-06). "Fired Prosecutor Says He Was Warned to Keep Quiet (Update2)". Bloomberg News.
-
"Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-05-30. Retrieved 2007-05-16.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Emails release by the House Judiciary Committee, email of Feb 20, 2007, page 17 - "Report: Rove was urged to oust U.S. attorney" - NBC News - March 11, 2007
- Rich, Eric (March 7, 2007). "Justice Admits U.S. Attorney Was Forced Out". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-03-07.
- Mike Allen (2007-03-20). "Dems' Strategy On Attorneys Takes Shape". CBS News. Retrieved 2007-03-20.
- Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Pryor to Fight Administration's Effort to Circumvent Senate Confirmation Process for U.S. Attorneys (Press Release). Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein. January 11, 2007. Retrieved January 7, 2014.
- Thornton, Kelly; Onell R. Soto (January 12, 2007). "Job performance said to be behind White House firing". San Diego Union Tribune. Archived from the original on 2007-05-18.
- Dan Eggen (2007-01-19). "Prosecutor Firings Not Political, Gonzales Says". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-04-16.
- Notice of Rescheduled Committee Hearing, Tuesday, February 6, 2007, at 9:30 a.m Archived February 28, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Hearing on "Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?" United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary January 30, 2007. Retrieved April 16, 2007.
- Tom Brune (2007-03-31). "Schumer again takes aim on White House". Newsday.com.
- ^ Johnston, David (2007-05-15). "Gonzales's Deputy Quits Justice Department". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
- Taylor, Marisa; Margaret Talev (2007-05-03). "Former deputy attorney general official defends fired U.S. attorneys". McClatchy Newspapers. Retrieved 2007-05-15.
- "MTP Transcript for Mar. 18, 2007". NBC News Meet the Press. 2007-03-18. Retrieved 2007-04-16.
- David Johnston (2007-02-16). "White House Is Reported to Be Linked to a Dismissal". The New York Times.
- Adrienne Packer (2007-02-08). "U.S. attorney rebuts claim performance led to firing". Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved 2007-04-16.
- Dan Eggen (2007-02-09). "Fired Prosecutor Disputes Justice Dept. Allegation". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-04-16.
- Michael Isikoff (2007-03-19). "Fuel to the Firings: Eight U.S. attorneys lost their jobs. Now investigators are assessing if the dismissals were politically motivated". Newsweek. Archived from the original on March 14, 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-16.
- Mark Follman (2007-02-28). "Inside Bush's prosecutor purge".
- David Johnston (2007-03-06). "Messenger in Prosecutors' Firings Quits". The New York Times.
- "Transcript of Media Availability With Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales" (Press release). U.S. Department of Justice. March 13, 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-08-25. Retrieved 2007-03-18.
- "Prosecutor Firings Are My Bad — Gonzales". New York Post. Associated Press. March 13, 2007. Archived from the original on October 15, 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-13.
- Ari Shapiro (2007-03-20). "E-Mails Show Justice Dept. in Damage-Control Mode". National Public Radio.
- Lara Jakes Jordan (2007-03-26). "White House backs AG as support wanes". Associated Press. Archived from the original on June 24, 2008.
- "Subpoenas target Justice; White House could be next". CNN. 2007-03-15.
- Sheryl Gay Stolberg (March 20, 2007). "Bush Clashes With Congress on Prosecutors". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-07-25.
- "President Bush Addresses Resignations of U.S. Attorneys - The Diplomatic Reception Room". 2007-03-20.
- Hulse, Carl (2007-03-21). "Panel Approves Five Subpoenas on Prosecutors". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-23.
- Paul Kane (2007-03-23). "Senate Panel Approves Subpoenas for 3 Top Bush Aides". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-04-17.
- ^ Eggen, Dan; Carol D. Leonnig (2007-05-23). "Officials Describe Interference by Former Gonzales Aide". The Washington Post. pp. A04. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
- Shapiro, Ari (2009-02-02). "Justice Rehires Attorney Fired Amid Gay Rumor". National Public Radio. Retrieved 2009-02-02.
- ^ Stout, David; Johnson, David (2007-04-06). "A Top Aide to the Attorney General Resigns". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-04-07.
- Talev, Margaret; Hutcheson, Ron; Taylor, Marisa (2007-03-26). "Gonzales aide will invoke Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify". Star Tribune. Retrieved 2007-04-07.
- Dan Eggen (2007-03-26). "Gonzales's Senior Counselor Refuses to Testify". The Washington Post.
- "House panel approves subpoena for Rice". NBC News. 25 April 2007. Archived from the original on 2018-01-06.
- Dan Eggen; Paul Kane. "Judge Gives Immunity to Gonzales Aide". The Washington Post. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
- "Order Granting Monica Goodling immunity". Gonzales Watch. 2007-05-11. Archived from the original on 2007-06-18. Retrieved 2007-05-11.
- Goodling, Monica (May 23, 2007). "Remarks of Monica Goodling before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives" (PDF). Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-05-30. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
- Congressional Quarterly, Transcripts Wire (May 23, 2007). "Goodling Testifies Before The House Judiciary Committee". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
- Suzanne Malveaux; Dana Bash; Ed Henry; Terry Frieden (2007-03-14). "GOP senator calls for Gonzales' head". CNN.
- Dana Bash; Ed Henry; Terry Frieden; Suzanne Malveaux (2007-03-15). "Sen. Pryor: Attorney General lied to the Senate". CNN.
- ^ "Bush Ally Gonzales resigns post". BBC News. 2007-08-27. Retrieved 2007-08-28.
- ^ Kwame Holman (July 11, 2007). "New Testimony on Fired Federal Prosecutors". PBS Newshour. Archived from the original on January 19, 2014. Retrieved August 26, 2017.
- "Excerpts from the Sara M. Taylor hearing". Associated Press. 2007-07-11.
- Laurie Kellman (2007-07-11). "Aide: Didn't Talk to Bush About Firings". London. Associated Press. Archived from the original on October 25, 2007.
- "Bush orders Miers to defy house subpoena". NBC News. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
- ^ Linda Sánchez; John Conyers, Jr. (2007-07-17). "Conyers, Sánchez Respond to RNC on Subpoena, Alerts White House of Potential Ruling on Immunity, Privilege Claims". Archived from the original on July 25, 2007.
- "Bush chief of staff faces possible contempt charge". Reuters. 2007-07-20. Archived from the original on February 3, 2017.
- ^ Ari Shapiro (2007-07-25). "Bush Aides in Contempt; Will They Be Prosecuted?". All Things Considered. National Public Radio.
- Paul Kiel (2008-02-14). "House passes contempt resolution against white house officials".
- Original text of the Letter from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Attorney General Michael Mukasey informing him of the contempt resolution passing the House Archived May 29, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
- "White House: E-mails on firings may have been killed". Reuters. 2007-04-11.
- Scott Higham; Robert O'Harrow Jr (2007-03-26). "GSA Chief Is Accused of Playing Politics: Doan Denies 'Improper' Use of Agency for GOP". The Washington Post. p. A01.
- "Leahy: Aides lying about White House-Justice e-mails". CNN. 2007-04-12.
- Lahey, Patrick Rove Email Subpoena United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary' (via Findlaw) May 2, 2007. Retrieved May 8, 2007.
- "Bush Adviser Karl Rove to Resign at End of Month". Foxnews.com. 2007-08-13. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
- 28 U.S.C. § 541
- 28 U.S.C. § 546 (U.S. Code prior to amendments of the USA PATRIOT Act, as of the retrieval date March 15, 2007.)
References and external links
This section's use of external links may not follow Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (September 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
- Resignation letters and emails, and other related documents hosted by WSJ
- Taylor, Marissa; Margaret Talev (2007-06-18). "A Q&A for the U.S. Attorneys saga". McClatchy Washington Bureau. McClatchy Newspapers. Archived from the original on June 2, 2008. Retrieved 2007-06-20.
- The Washington Post in-depth coverage site on firings: "Special Reports: U.S. Attorney Firings Investigation". The Washington Post. 2007-03-05. Retrieved 2010-05-01.
- Inside the U.S. Attorneys Emails: Major Players and Themes The Wall Street Journal (review of the most significant of the emails).
- Allegra Hartley Timeline: How the U.S. Attorneys Were Fired U.S. News & World Report April 18, 2007.
- Articles and books
- Eisenstein, James. Counsel for the United States: U.S. Attorneys in the Political and Legal Systems. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. 1978.
- Iglesias, David with Davin Seay. In Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked the Bush Administration. Hoboken, New Jersey. Wiley, 2008. ISBN 978-0-470-26197-2.
- Johnston, David (January 17, 2007). "Justice Dept. Names New Prosecutors, Forcing Some Out". The New York Times.
- Kane, Paul; Dan Eggen (March 9, 2007). "Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys". The Washington Post. pp. Page A01. Article on the hearings.
- "Dems Seek Testimony From Fired Attorneys". NBC News. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
- McKay, John. Train Wreck at the Justice Department: An Eyewitness Account. Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 31, p. 265, 2008
- Vicini, James (March 13, 2007). "Justice aide resigns over prosecutor firings". Reuters. Wire article on Congressional supoenas issued to attorneys.
- Whitford, Andrew B. "Bureaucratic Discretion, Agency Structure, and Democratic Responsiveness: The Case of the United States Attorneys." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 12, No. 1: 3-27 (2002). Public Management Research Association.
- US Attorneys controversy references
- Spotlight Profiles of the Gonzales Seven, plus One ePluribus Media
- The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok ePluribus Media
- Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
- Investigations and hearings of the United States Congress
- Patrick Leahy
- Political scandals in the United States
- Patriot Act
- 110th United States Congress
- 2006 in American politics
- 2006 in American law
- 2006 controversies in the United States
- George W. Bush administration controversies