Archive for the 'US Attorneys Purge' Category
Aug 30, 2007 at 11:04 PM by Political Chase
The Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) informed Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is pursuing a broad investigation of outgoing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Although the Inspector General, Glenn Fine, had already started an investigation of Gonzales in June, his letter today was in response to an August 16 request from Leahy to, in effect, expand the investigation.
Leahy released a statement today announcing the IG’s response and summarized his rather lengthy 8/16 request.
I look forward to the Inspector General?s findings on the unprecedented firings of nine United States Attorneys, the improper political hiring of career officials within the Justice Department, the misuse of National Security Letters, and the efforts to bypass the Department?s finding that a warrantless surveillance program was without legal basis. These actions have eroded the public?s trust and undermined morale within our justice system, from the top ranks to the cop on the beat.
Fine wrote (pdf) Leahy:
The OIG has ongoing investigations that relate to most of the subjects addressed by the Attorney General’s testimony that you identified. In particular, the OIG is conducting a review relating to the terrorist surveillance program, as well as a follow-up review of the use of national security letters. In addition, the OIG is conducting a joint investigation with the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility into allegations regarding the removal of certain United States Attorneys and improper hiring practices.
Although the pressure on Gonzales has been increasing for months, after reading Leahy’s August 16 letter (pdf) to Fine it is easy to see the rapid acceleration of the final milestones that lead to Gonzales’ resignation.
The day before the August 3 deadline for Gonzales to provide clarification and additional information to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter said, “I think we need to finish this investigation and find a way to end the tenure of Attorney General Gonzales.” It looks like Leahy’s letter to Fine was “the way.”
It would be hard to argue that Leahy’s 8/16 letter to Fine was anything but damaging to Gonzales, his lieutenants, and possibly the White House. It is carefully worded to allow full discovery wherever it may lead.
Furthermore, while reading through Leahy’s letter you quickly realize you need an abacus to keep track of all the crimes Gonzales et al. likely committed. I would be very surprised if Leahy’s detailed investigation request was not the tipping point for Gonzales to tell George Boy goodbye.
Aug 15, 2007 at 4:34 PM by Political Chase
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has requested a face-to-face meeting with President Bush and Leahy is not looking to exchange pleasantries over crumpets and tea. Leahy wants to specifically address the president’s stonewalling of the committee’s investigation into the firing of the U.S. attorneys.
This should make for a very interesting meeting. First, as you know, the White House has refused to provide a single document the committee has requested (voluntarily and via subpoena). Second, we know Bush doesn’t meet with anybody from Congress unless Dick Cheney is present. Given Mr. Cheney’s claim of unitary executive and his past display of vulgar gestures to Leahy, the environment will be ripe for serious drama.
Leahy withheld no punches in his letter (pdf) to Bush. “This is about extending improper political influence into our justice system and then misleading Congress and the American people about that [sic] political corruption of law enforcement.” Continuing, Leahy wrote, “the accumulated evidence shows that the list of those [U.S. attorneys] to be fired was based on input from the political ranks in the White House and that the reasons given for these firings were…part of a cover up.”
Leahy’s call for a meeting is not a unilateral approach. Ranking committee member Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) suggested Leahy request the potentially confrontational meeting.
If Bush honors Leahy’s request, wouldn’t it be great be a fly on the wall and observe Cheney’s gnarling and growling.
Aug 1, 2007 at 2:54 AM by Political Chase
From the Oval Office all the way through the Justice Department, they’re nothing but dirty, rotten, sleazy crooks.
From the Washington Post (emphasis added):
The night before the government secured a guilty plea from the manufacturer of the addictive painkiller OxyContin, a senior Justice Department official called the U.S. attorney handling the case and, at the behest of an executive for the drugmaker, urged him to slow down, the prosecutor told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.
John L. Brownlee, the U.S. attorney in Roanoke, testified that he was at home the evening of Oct. 24 when he received the call on his cellphone from Michael J. Elston, then chief of staff to the deputy attorney general and one of the Justice aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year.
Brownlee settled the case anyway. Eight days later, his name appeared on a list compiled by Elston of prosecutors that officials had suggested be fired.
Jul 27, 2007 at 2:05 PM by Political Chase
In a press conference (HTML or PDF) yesterday, Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer (NY), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Russ Feingold (WI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) called for the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate “possible wrongdoing” (read: criminal activities) by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales related to Gonzales’ false statements to Congress and the firing of nine U.S. attorneys (read: U.S. attorney matter, illegal wiretapping, etc.). I wouldn’t get my hopes up on this; the White House will surely block the request if at all possible.
Senator Schumer absolutely blistered Gonzales in the press conference.
Duration 01:01
Transcript:
The Attorney General took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Instead he tells the half-truth, the partial-truth, and everything but the truth. And, he does it not once, not twice, but over, and over, and over again. His instinct is not to tell the truth, but to dissemble and deceive. Enough is truly enough. Not for us. Not even for the Senate, but for the 90,000 employees of the Justice Department and for 300 million Americans, who at the very minimum need an attorney general who can tell the truth.
The Senators cited three predominate reasons for demanding the Special Counsel:
- To look at whether in fact the [Justice] Department has been politicized;
- To evaluate his misleading and often untrue statements to the Congress; and
- To look at the Administration’s decision to block any United States Attorney from pursuing charges of contempt of Congress against officials who have refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas.
The request was sent to Solicitor General Paul D. Clement - about three to four levels lower than normal procedure calls for. Clement was chosen because all other Justice Department officials have recused themselves or resigned. Deja vu - the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate.
Clement has 30 days to respond to the request and furthermore, I would not bet on Clement assigning anybody. Clement is part of the Justice Department and George Bush has forbidden anyone from the Justice Department to be assigned to Executive Privilege related cases. I believe Bush will view this as part and parcel to his standing order.
Jul 27, 2007 at 11:34 AM by Political Chase
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow accused Democrats yesterday of attempting to divulge classified information. When MSNBC’s Chris Matthews (Hardball) asked Snow about FBI Director Robert Mueller’s House Judiciary Committee testimony, he said, “There’s an attempt right now on Capitol Hill to try to get members of this administration to talk in open session about highly classified matters.”
Duration 00:52
Snow’s contrived diabolical scheme is flat out wrong. Nobody was trying to reveal classified information. Snow’s statements are the White House’s plan to cover for Gonzales, and everything else for that matter. When the White House is asked controversial questions, the answers suddenly become classified. In the words of Patrick Fitzgerald, throwing sand in the umpire’s eyes. The Committee was simply trying to further determine if Abu Gonzales’ testimony was accurate.
Jul 27, 2007 at 11:05 AM by Political Chase
I’ve been away for a couple of weeks and will tell you more about that later, but first I want to catch up on the extremely busy day in Washington yesterday. The first item on the list is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday.
Gonzales Lies to Congress
As most of you probably know by now, in his testimony, Gonzales committed political suicide and possibly opened the door for perjury and other criminal matters. In the following video, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) unequivocally nails Gonzales for lying about the meeting that led to the late-night attempt by Gonzales and Andrew Card to strong-arm former Attorney General John Ashcroft while critically ill in the hospital.
The high point is in the last few minutes of the video; however, if you haven’t been following this situation rather closely or need a refresher, I suggest watching the entire video. (Time permitting, I may post an abbreviated version of the exchange between Schumer and Gonzales.)
Duration 08:40
The salient point is Gonzales has dissembled and flip-flopped about the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program and more specifically the emergency White House Meeting to discuss renewal of the program. Gonzales previously testified the emergency meeting was about the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) and then changed his testimony by saying the meeting was about other intelligence programs. Lying about the subject matter of the meeting is notable, but the actual topic, rather than Gonzales’ flip-flopping, has far more serious legal implications, which I will get into later.
Evidence of Perjury
After Gonzales testified to the House Judiciary Committee, the Associated Press obtained documents that contradicted Gonzales testimony - tangible, documented proof of perjury. Gonzales maintained in his testimony to Senator Schumer that the emergency White House meeting and mad dash to Ashcroft’s hospital bedside was about “other intelligence activities” and not the TSP. The AP documents state the meeting was about the TSP, provides a list of attendees, and other information. The documents obtained by the AP were a four-page memo from then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte to then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.
Furthermore discrediting Gonzales July 24 testimony, four attendees of the meeting, including Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), disputed Gonzales’ account of the meeting.
FBI Director Contradicts Gonzales
As if Gonzales did not already have sufficient damning evidence against him, FBI Director Robert Mueller delivered a devastating blow in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. In the following video, Mueller confirms, so to speak, to Congresswoman Jackson Lee that TSP was discussed in Ashcroft’s hospital room; not “other intelligence activities” as Gonzales testified on July 24.
Duration 02:49
Coming up - Tony Snow’s comments on the controversy surrounding Gonzales.
Jul 26, 2007 at 4:23 PM by Political Chase
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy announced today that subpoenas for testimony and documents will be issued to Karl Rove and Scott Jennings.
The video is Leahy’s announcement from the Senate floor.
Duration: 08:26
The cover letters, subpoenas, and Leahy’s statement can be found here.
Jun 29, 2007 at 5:07 PM by Political Chase
In a scathing letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) demanded the now delinquent White House information and documents the Congressional committees subpoenaed, and gave notice Congress will move to the next legal steps if the White House does not comply.
The Chairmen duly noted the arrogant, contemptuous, and unprecedented disregard President Bush has taken with Congress and the American people.
Your action today in stonewalling the Committees’ investigations is also inconsistent with the practices of every Administration since World War II in responding to congressional oversight. In that time, presidential advisers have testified before congressional committees 74 times voluntarily or compelled by subpoenas…Moreover, your blanket assertion of executive privilege belies any good faith attempt to determine where privilege truly does and does not apply. A serious assertion of privilege would include an effort to demonstrate to the Committees which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that may apply.
Did we really expect President Bush to respond with the unitary executive, Dick Cheney, pulling his strings and guiding every step? Not no, but hell no.
Leahy and Conyers drew a line in the sand with a deadline to respond by no later than July 9 at 10:00 a.m. or else…
Please provide the documents compelled by the subpoenas without further delay. If you continue to decline to do so, you should immediately provide us with the specific factual and legal bases for your claims regarding each document withheld via a privilege log as described above and a copy of any explicit determination by the President with respect to the assertion of privilege. You have until July 9, 2007, at 10 a.m. to bring this and any other information you wish to submit to our attention before we move to proceedings to rule on your claims and consider whether the White House is in contempt of Congress.
I don’t see Bush changing his mind just because they received this nastygram from Leahy and Conyers. It is a very simple matter in certain ways. The White House would not take these drastic steps, and they are drastic, to claim a blanket executive privilege unless they had more to lose if they complied with the demands. The President has backed himself into a corner and his only option is to try and fight his way out of it.
Think about this…I brought it up many months ago. George Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court had a lot more to do with Bush’s self-serving purposes than her Constitutional expertise (which she had none). Bush/Cheney knew at the time they may need a back door into the Court. The CIA leak investigation and the illegal wiretapping dominated every news cycle at the time Miers was nominated.
Leahy and Conyers’ letter can be found here in HTML format or PDF format.
Jun 28, 2007 at 1:38 PM by Political Chase
It did not take House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) long to respond (Roll Call, sub. req.) to the White House invoking executive privilege. (I wonder if that includes unitary executive privilege?) “The President’s response to our subpoena shows an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government,” Conyers said. “At this point, I see only one choice in moving forward, and that is to enforce the rule of law set forth in these subpoenas.”
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) seized the moment to poke at the cowboy in the White House: “The president seems to be saying: ‘How can I stonewall? Let me count the ways.’” Schumer continued: “Maybe everyone has acted honorably. But show me an administration that craves secrecy, and I’ll show you an administration that probably has something to hide.”
Now, reflect on this issue. The Department of Justice, filled with “Bushies” and under the inept, prejudiced control of Alberto Gonzales, will be responsible for prosecuting the contempt case against the White House. How do you think that’s going to work out for Congress? I’m sure there are many credible and ethical U.S. attorneys in the DOJ, but who are they? The only one I know and trust is Patrick Fitzgerald and that won’t happen in a million years.
Jun 28, 2007 at 11:52 AM by Political Chase
The White House has invoked executive privilege for the subpoenas issued to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former Political Director Sarah Taylor.
”With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation,” White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to Leahy and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. ”We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.”
In reaction, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy accused the administration of shifting ”into Nixonian stonewalling” and revealing ”disdain for our system of checks and balances.”
”Increasingly, the president and vice president feel they are above the law,” said Leahy, D-Vt., after getting the news from Fielding in an early-morning phone call. ”In America no one is above law.”
Jun 21, 2007 at 11:40 AM by Political Chase
Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty will testify (12:00 PM EDT) before a House Judiciary subcommittee about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. Here is a copy of McNulty’s written statement to the subcommittee.
Jun 15, 2007 at 11:19 PM by Political Chase
Paul Keil has obtained a copy of a letter from a Department of Justice employee (obviously an attorney) formally complaining to an Inspector General about systemic ethnic-gender cleansing within the DOJ Civil Rights Division. The target of the complaint is Bradley Schlozman, the controversial political appointee in the Civil Rights Division and former U.S. attorney for the western district of Missouri. Schlozman recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, going so far as to brag “about his success in hiring conservative Republican lawyers onto his staff that handled civil rights cases.” To say the least, the anonymous complaint confirms Schlozman’s vaporing testimony.
Bradley J. Schlozman is systematically attempting to purge all Civil Rights appellate attorneys hired under Democratic administrations. In the process he appears to be the targeting minority women lawyers. Schlozman told one recently hired attorney that it was his intention to drive these attorneys out of the Appellate Section so that he could replace them with “good Americans.”…Schlozman’s intent appears to be to replace these minority women attorneys with white, invariably Christian men.
(Emphasis added)
Keil has the details.
Jun 15, 2007 at 11:25 AM by Political Chase
The scope of the U.S. attorney purge investigation will also include investigating whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tried to improperly influence the testimony of his aide, Monica Goodling. Goodling testified in March that Gonzales, in effect, tried to compare recollections so their testimonies would be consistent.
The investigation may prove Gonzales perjured himself, but I seriously doubt any witness tampering charges will come from the investigation. It is a he-said-she-said situation. Now, if Gonzales turns out to be a tad Nixonian, that’s a different story. Who knows, thus far every time a rock is turned over, something is there.
Jun 13, 2007 at 8:11 PM by Political Chase
The Justice Department released a new set of emails last night linking Sara Taylor, former White House Political Director and top Karl Rove aide, to the U.S. attorney scandal.
The emails are exchanges between Taylor and Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, discussing Karl Rove’s protege Tim Griffin, and Bud Cummins, the fired U.S. attorney Griffin replaced. Taylor and Sampson discuss retribution against Cummins for Cummins going public on his firing.
Since I am still recovering from the system crash two days ago, I cannot read the specific emails yet, but ThinkProgress has the full story. According to ThinkProgress, this is from the first exchange where Sara Taylor writes to Kyle Sampson about firing Cummins.
I normally don’t like attacking our friends, but since Bud Cummins is talking to everyone - why don’t we tell the deal on him?
There are several exchanges between the White House and Main Justice that were sent through the Republican National Committee’s email servers, rather than White House servers in a effort to obviously mitigate scrutiny. Too bad they got caught because that is a violation of the Presidential Records Act, but that’s probably the least of their worries right now.
Check ThinkProgress for more details, meanwhile I should have things back to normal soon.
If you want to go directly to the emails, they are here (PDF).
Jun 13, 2007 at 5:24 PM by Political Chase
Why, you may ask, was Karl Rove, the Turd Blossom in Chief, not subpoenaed? From Roll Call (sub. req.):
The two committees pointedly avoided issuing a subpoena to presidential adviser Karl Rove, who also has been implicated in the scandal. One senior Democratic aide said lawmakers were “trying to build an investigation” and the timing was not yet right for subpoenaing the White House political guru.
In other words, the more information they have before talking to Rove, the tighter the box Rove will be in. Less room for ambiguity and I don’t recall.
