DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on March 16, 2007, 02:14:59 AM
-
Via TPM TPM Canned US Attorney Scandal Timeline
Version 1.0 | Updated 3/15/07
How to Send Updates for the Timeline | Return to TPM
2001-02
# The White House appoints all eight US Attorneys. The dates of their individual appointments are as follows:
* 10/18/01: David Iglesias (New Mexico)
* 10/24/01: John McKay (Western Washington)
* 11/02/01: Margaret Chiara (Western Michigan)
* 11/02/01: Daniel Bogden (Nevada)
* 11/14/01: Paul Charlton (Arizona)
* 01/09/02: H.E. "Bud" Cummins (Eastern Arkansas)
* 08/02/02: Kevin Ryan (Northern California)
* 11/08/02: Carol Lam (Southern California)
November, 2004
# Ed Cassidy, chief of staff for Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA), contacts US Attorney John McKay (WA) following the 2004 gubernatorial election. Cassidy inquires whether McKay will pursue investigations of voter fraud. In later testimony (3/7/07), McKay recalls, "I stopped him and I told him that I was sure that he wasn't asking me on behalf of his boss to reveal information about an ongoing investigation or to lobby me on one, because we both knew that would be improper. He agreed that it would be improper and ended the conversation in a most expeditious fashion."
February 2005
# Harriet Miers, the White House Counsel, suggests replacing all 93 US Attorneys. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales rejects the idea as "impractical and disruptive," according to The Washington Post.
March 2, 2005
# Kyle Sampson, a counselor to Gonzales, sends an email to Miers ranking all US Attorneys. According to The Washington Post the breakdown evaluates US Attorneys by, "loyalty to the administration," as well as other standards. US Attorney David Iglesias (NM) is described by Sampson as "recommended retaining."
Midyear, 2005
# New Mexico Republican Party Chairman Allan Weh complains about US Attorney David Iglesias (NM) to a White House liaison working for Karl Rove.
September 23, 2005
# Kyle Sampson becomes Gonzales' Chief of Staff.
# Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) contacts Alberto Gonzales to voice concerns about the performance of David Iglesias. Kyle Sampson and William Moschella, the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, are listed as in attendance.
December 14, 2005
# The USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 comes out of conference. At some point during the conference, a staffer for Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA), Brett Tolman, added Section 502. The addition eliminates restrictions on the length of service for interim Attorneys. The new Patriot Act allows future interim attorneys to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation.
William Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general, later tells McClatchy Newspapers that he pursued the change for the Justice Department "without the knowledge or coordination of his superiors at the Justice Department or anyone at the White House."
January 2006
# Sampson sends to the White House a list of seven candidates for dismissal. The list includes US Attorneys Margaret Chiara (MI), Bud Cummins (AR), Carol Lam (CA) and Kevin Ryan (CA). All of these Attorneys will eventually be fired.
January 31, 2006
# Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) contacts the office of the Attorney General to voice concerns about the performance of US Attorney David Iglesias (NM). Kyle Sampson and William Moshella are listed as participating in the call.
March 2, 2006
# The Patriot Act is passed by the Senate and the House.
March 9, 2006
# Bush signs the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005.
April 4, 2006
# Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) calls the office of the Attorney General for a third time to voice concerns about the performance of US Attorney David Iglesias, and to question whether Iglesias is up to the job. Kyle Sampson, William Moschella and Monica Goodling participate in the call.
May 5, 2006
# Porter Goss, director of the CIA, resigns unexpectedly, amidst controversy surrounding his chosen CIA Executive Director, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. (sub. req.)
# The Wall Street Journal reports that Foggo is under investigation as part of the ongoing San Diego/Cunningham scandal. The office overseeing the investigation is that of US Attorney Carol Lam. (sub. req.)
May 8, 2006
# Foggo resigns from the CIA.
May 11, 2006
# The LA Times reports that the investigation of Cunningham has expanded to include Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA), House Appropriations Committee Chairman.
# Sampson emails Mier's deputy William Kelly, writing that they need to discuss: "The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires." Sampson also mentions a need to discuss "Tim Griffin for E.D. Ark."
May 12, 2006
# Federal agents working on the San Diego/Cunningham investigation execute search warrants on the home and office of Kyle "Dusty" Foggo.
June 5, 2006
# Mike Battle, director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, calls US Attorney Bud Cummins (AK), asking him to resign. Cummins, in seeking an explanation, paraphrased Battle as saying "This is entirely about the administration's desire to give somebody else the opportunity." (sub. req.)
June 20, 2006
# Scott Jennings, deputy to Karl Rove, emails the Justice Department's liaison to the White House Monica Goodling. Jennings informs Goodling that Mickey Barnett, the President's nominee for the US Postal Board of Governors, would like to meet, "with someone at DOJ to discuss the USATTY situation there." Goodling agrees to arrange a personal meeting with Barnett because the matter is considered "sensitive".
June 21, 2006
# Mickey Barnett and Pat Rogers, both prominent Republican attorneys in New Mexico, meet with Monica Goodling to vent frustrations about U.S. Attorney David Iglesias' handling of voter fraud investigations.
August 23, 2006
# Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) receives a letter from the Justice Department regarding US Attorney Carol Lam (CA). The letter notes that Lam's office has committed half of her attorneys to pursue criminal immigration cases, satisfying the interests of the Justice Department.
August 2006
# Justice Department officials Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling discuss how to bypass two Arkansas Democratic senators in the replacement of US Attorney Bud Cummins.
September 2006
# Timothy Griffin, former aide to Karl Rove, returns from active duty. He begins working as a special assistant to Bud Cummins.
September 17, 2006
# Kyle Sampson emails to Harriet Miers a second list recommending nine US Attorneys to be replaced. David Iglesias is not included as an attorney to be replaced.
# Regarding US Attorney Bud Cummins (AK), Sampson writes that he is "in the process of being pushed out." Regarding the larger project of replacing US Attorneys, Sampson writes, "I am in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out... I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments." Sampson writes further that by avoiding Senate confirmation, "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."
Early October 2006
# Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) contacts Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty sometime in the first week of October to discuss frustrations with US Attorney David Iglesias (NM).
October 16, 2006
# Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) calls David Iglesias to inquire about possible sealed indictments in the corruption investigation at least one state Democrat. US Attorneys are legally prevented from discussing indictments under investigation. Iglesias is, in his own words, "evasive and non-responsive to her questions. I say, "Well, we sometimes do seal indictments for national security cases; sometimes we have to do them for juvenile cases.' And she was not happy with that answer. And the she said, 'Well, I guess I'll have to take your word for it.' And I said -- I don't think I responded -- "Goodbye," and that was the substance of that conversation."
October 27, 2006
# Senator Domenici calls David Iglesias at home. Senator Domenici asks to discuss widely reported corruption cases against local Democrats. Iglesias recalls, "And he said, 'Are these going to be filed before November?' And I said I didn't think so. And to which he replied, 'I'm very sorry to hear that.' And then the line went dead."
October 2006
# Bush passes to Gonzales complaints he has heard that some US Attorneys are not adequately pursuing voter-fraud investigations. According to the Justice Department, Gonzales does not recall the conversation.
# David Iglesias is added to the Justice Department's list of US Attorneys to be replaced after complaints from New Mexico Republicans about his handling of voter fraud investigations.
November 7, 2006
# Election Day. Rep. Heather Wilson wins reelection by 875 votes. David Iglesias has not filed an indictment in the corruption case.
November 15, 2006
# Sampson drafts a detailed "Plan for Replacing Certain United States Attorneys." David Iglesias is added to the list of US Attorneys that will be pushed out.
November 2006
# Karl Rove learns that eight prosecutors are to be fired (or at least that's what an "associate of Rove" has told The New York Times.)
December 4, 2006
# Kyle Sampson emails Harriet Miers to about the firing plans. Sampson writes, "We would like to execute this on Thursday, Dec. 7." Referring to the fact that some United States attorneys are attending a conference in Washington, he writes, "We want to wait until they are back home and dispersed to reduce chatter."
December 7, 2006
# Michael Battle, director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, calls seven US Attorneys to ask for their resignations. No attorney is given an explanation of why they have been dismissed.
# William Kelly, deputy to Harriet Miers, states in an email that Steve Bell, chief of staff for Senator Domenici, is "happy as a clam" about the firing of Iglesias that morning.
December 15, 2006
# Timothy Griffin is named replacement for US Attorney Bud Cummins (AK). Mr. Cummins is hiking with his son and is unaware of the announcement.
December 19th, 2006
# Sampson recommends Gonzales exercise his newfound authority to replace US Attorney Bud Cummins (AK) with Timothy Griffin, former aide to Karl Rove. Regarding the new provision in the Patriot Act, Sampson writes, "f we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?" He also notes that Griffin's appointment is "important to Harriet, Karl, etc."
December 20, 2006
# Bud Cummins offers his belated resignation as US Attorney.
December 2006
# Allen Weh, New Mexico's Republican party chairman, visits the White House. Weh expresses his frustration with David Iglesias directly to Karl Rove during a holiday party. Weh recalls asking Rove, "Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" According to Weh, Rove responded, "He's gone."
# In late December Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, calls US Attorney John McKay (WA). According to McKay, Elston calls to inquire whether McKay will complain publicly about his firing. McKay claims, "He was offering me a deal: you stay silent and the attorney general won't say anything bad about you." Elston acknowledges this call but denies that he expressed any such message.
January 4, 2007
# Harriet Miers resigns as White House Counsel. Her resignation becomes effective January 31st.
January 10, 2007
# David Iglesias writes Kyle Sampson, asking if he can use the Attorney General as a job reference. Sampson responds, "You can list the [Attorney General] as a reference- not a problem. Good luck."
Early February, 2007
# Michael Battle, the Justice Department official who made the calls to actually fire the prosecutors, issues his resignation.
February 6, 2007
# The Senate Judiciary Committee meets with the Justice Department about the recent firings. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty informs the Senate that, with the exception of Eastern Arkansas' Bud Cummins, the firings were because of "performance-related" issues.
February 8, 2007
# US Attorney for Nevada Daniel Bogden tells The Las Vegas Review-Journal that "To this date, no one from the department has previously identified any issues with my performance or the performance of my office."
February 9, 2007
# US Attorney for Seattle John McKay tells The Washington Post that his office received glowing reviews and that the Justice Department's statement that he was dismissed for "performance related" reasons is "unfair."
February 13, 2007
# McClatchy Newspapers reports that at least five of the fired prosecutors "received positive job evaluations before they were ordered to step down."
February 16, 2007
# Timothy Griffin announces that he won't seek Senate confirmation. He explained, "to submit my name to the Senate would be like volunteering to stand in front of a firing squad in the middle of a three-ring circus."
February 19, 2007
# The Washington Post reports that six of the fired prosecutors had positive job evaluations. Former US Attorney for Eastern Arkansas Bud Cummins is quoted in the story as saying "if [officials in the Justice Department] are trying to suggest that people have inferior performance to hide whatever their true agenda is, that is wrong. They should retract those statements."
February 20, 2007
# Michael Elston contacts US Attorney Bud Cummins (AK). Cummins described the conversation in an email to the other fired U.S. attorneys about an hour after the call: The essence of his message was that they feel like they are taking unnecessary flak to avoid trashing each of us specificially or further, but if they feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press, or organize behind the scenes congressional pressure, then they would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully.
February 27 2007
# Richard Hurtling, Acting Assistant Attorney General, sends a letter to Senator Schumer. Hurtling writes, "The Department of Justice is not aware of anyone lobbying for Mr. [Timothy] Griffin's appointment." Hurtling writes further, "The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin."
March 1, 2007
# McClatchy Newspapers reports that two members of Congress made calls to US Attorney David Iglesias (NM) in October, pressuring him to accelerate corruption investigations into local Democrats.
March 4, 2007
# Senator Domenici releases a statement saying he regrets calling Mr. Iglesias.
March 5, 2007
# Representative Heather Wilson acknowledges calling Iglesias. She denies that she pressured him to speed up any investigation.
# Michael Battle, the Justice Department official who made the calls to fire the US Attorneys, is reported to have resigned. His resignation becomes effective March 16th.
March 6, 2007
# The New York Times reports that the former federal prosecutor in Maryland, Thomas M. DiBiagio, says that he was forced out in early 2005 because of political pressure stemming from public corruption investigations involving associates of the state’s Republican governor.
# US Attorneys Daniel Bodgen (NV), Paul Charlton (AZ), Bud Cummins (AK), David Iglesias (NM), Carol Lam (CA), John McKay (WA), and Justice Department official William Moschella testify before Congress. All the fired prosecutors testify that they were never told why they were being asked to step down because they performed poorly. Moschella admits that none of the prosecutors were told or warned about the supposed deficiencies in their performances before they were asked to step down.
Iglesias testifies that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) called him to question him about his office's corruption investigation of a prominent state Democrat shortly before the 2006 election.
McKay testifies that Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) chief of staff called him after the 2004 election to ask whether his office was investigation allegations of Democratic voter fraud.
Cummins testifes that DoJ official Michael Elston called him on February 20th to say that if the fired prosecutors continued speaking out, the DoJ would have to release negative information about them.
Charlton and Bogden both testify that they were told by DoJ official Bill Mercer that they were being fired to make room for another Republican to build his/her resume.
March 7, 2007
# Senator Domenici confirms Iglesias' testimony that the two spoke in late October regarding ongoing investigations.
March 11, 2007
# The White House acknowledges that Karl Rove passed complaints to the Justice Department regarding US Attorneys.
March 12, 2007
# Sampson, chief of staff for Gonzales, resigns his position, effective immediately. Upon resignation, Sampson admits that he did not inform key Justice Officials as to the extent of his correspondence with the White House.
March 13, 2007
# The Justice Department releases emails that show DoJ officials consulting with the White House counsel's office about removing certain U.S. Attorneys dating back to early 2005.
# Gonzales defends the role of the Justice Department in a press conference .Concerning his personal performance, Gonzales says, "I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here." When asked about specific actions that led to the firing of eight US attorneys, Gonzales responds, "n an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions."
March 14, 2007
# Senator John Sununu (R-NH) becomes the first Republican Senator to call for the resignation of Gonzales.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php
-
Liberals said nothing when Clinton purged 93 U.S. Attorneys, including one that was investigating Whitewater. They are such hypocrites.
-
And, not so surprisingly, no one's dared to try to answer my earlier question, regarding the transparent double standard between when a President with a D does it exponentially more than when one with an R does it. ???
-
In both cases, they serve at the whim of the President and they knew this when they accepted the position. Every day, they knew they could be relieved of their position for any reason whatsoever, in both Administrations. And so Sirs issues a valid question.
So, what's the beef?
-
Posted on Tue, Mar. 13, 2007
Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and its defenders like to point out that President Bush isn't the first president to fire U.S. attorneys and replace them with loyalists.
While that's true, the current case is different. Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected.
Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term.
Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term.
"In some instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may have been pleased with the work of the U.S. attorneys, who, after all, they had appointed," Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, speculated in a 2006 memo outlining Bush's alternative approach. "In other instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may simply have been unwilling to commit the resources necessary to remove the U.S. attorneys."
Nonetheless, Bush aide Dan Bartlett noted Clinton's first term firings in defending Bush's second term dismissals.
"Those discretionary decisions made by a president, by an administration, are often done," he told reporters Tuesday.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16897325.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation
Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made'
But Attorney General Defends Firings of Eight U.S. Attorneys
"legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 14, 2007; A01
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales took responsibility yesterday for "mistakes" related to the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year but rejected calls for his resignation from Democrats who accuse him of misleading Congress.
"I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility," Gonzales said. He said he did not know the details of the plan to fire the prosecutors, but he defended the dismissals: "I stand by the decision, and I think it was a right decision."
The remarks came after the Justice Department released e-mails and other documents showing that, despite months of administration statements to the contrary, the White House more than two years ago initiated the process that led to the dismissals, and that the decisions were heavily influenced by assessments of the prosecutors' political loyalty. President Bush and senior White House adviser Karl Rove also separately passed along complaints to Gonzales that prosecutors were not aggressively pursuing voter-fraud cases, officials said.
The revelations prompted another outcry on Capitol Hill over the firings and new demands for Gonzales's resignation from key Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.). "It appears he's over his head in this job," Reid said.
Even Republicans who have supported the ousters sharply criticized the attorney general.
But Gonzales said he is "here not because I give up," and White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Bush has "all the confidence in the world" in Gonzales, who has served Bush for more than 12 years in Texas and Washington.
Democrats also renewed calls for testimony from Rove and Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel who first suggested in February 2005 that all 93 U.S. attorneys be removed and whose office was provided with evolving lists of at least a dozen prosecutors targeted for ouster. The White House signaled that it would resist the demands.
E-mails released yesterday show that White House deputy political director J. Scott Jennings communicated with Justice officials about the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide, to be the U.S. attorney in Little Rock. Jennings used an e-mail account registered to the Republican National Committee, where Griffin had worked as an opposition researcher.
Democratic congressional aides said they will investigate whether using the private address for government business violated laws against using taxpayer resources for political work or signaled that White House officials considered the firing of U.S. attorneys to be primarily a political issue. Jennings did not return a call to his office seeking a comment.
"As a matter of course, the RNC provides server space and equipment to certain White House personnel in order to assist them with their political efforts," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said.
Seven U.S. attorneys were fired on Dec. 7, and another was let go months earlier, with little explanation from Justice Department officials, who later told Congress that the dismissals were related to their performance in office. Several former prosecutors have since alleged intimidation, including improper telephone calls from GOP lawmakers or their aides, and have alleged threats of retaliation by a Justice Department official.
Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.
In defending themselves yesterday, Gonzales and the White House implicitly laid much of the blame for miscommunication with Congress on D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned Monday as Gonzales's chief of staff as the result of not telling other Justice officials about his extensive communications with the White House about the dismissals.
Gonzales, likening himself to a chief executive who delegates responsibility to others, said he knew few details about how Sampson was orchestrating the prosecutors' removal.
"I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on," he said. "That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."
Gonzales said he accepted Sampson's resignation because, by withholding information from other Justice officials, he led them to provide "incomplete information" in testimony to Congress. Gonzales did not comment on his own testimony in January, when he assured senators that he would never fire a U.S. attorney for political reasons.
The administration, which has offered varying explanations for the dismissals over the past three months, also returned to arguments yesterday that the U.S. attorneys were dismissed for performance-related reasons and that the removals were well within presidential prerogatives. Bartlett said it is "highly unlikely" that the administration would allow Rove or Miers to testify before Congress.
The Justice e-mails and internal documents, which were first reported yesterday by The Washington Post, show that political loyalty and positions on signature GOP policy issues loomed large in weighing whether a prosecutor should be dismissed. One e-mail from Sampson, for example, notes that the appointment of Griffin in Little Rock "was important to Harriet, Karl, etc."
The documents also illustrate that after nearly two years of debate, the dismissal of the seven prosecutors in December was carried out under a plan by Sampson that provided step-by-step guidance on how the prosecutors would be fired, who would be notified and how to deal with criticism. One section of the plan was titled "Preparing for Political Upheaval."
"I am concerned that to execute this plan properly we must all be on the same page and be steeled to withstand any political upheaval that might result," Sampson wrote to Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, on Nov. 15.
In an earlier e-mail, Sampson asked another Justice official whether then-U.S. Attorney Carol S. Lam of San Diego had been admonished for not prosecuting more immigration cases.
Has the deputy attorney general's office "ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?" Sampson wrote.
The e-mails indicate that then-U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico was added to the firing list in October, about the same time he says he received telephone calls from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.). Iglesias alleges they pressured him to speed up a corruption investigation of state Democrats before the November elections.
The firings did not prevent Iglesias from asking Sampson in early January if Gonzales would put in a good word for him with prospective employers.
"David, I am well thank you," Sampson replied by e-mail on Jan. 10. "You can list the AG as a reference -- not a problem. Good luck!"
On Capitol Hill, a few additional Democrats called for Gonzales to resign, while lawmakers from both parties lined up to castigate the attorney general for his handling of the firings and for a separate revelation last week that the FBI had abused its power to seize personal records of Americans. Senate Republicans also began negotiating with Democrats over legislation to strip Gonzales of his right to avoid Senate oversight by appointing interim prosecutors indefinitely.
Many administration defenders had harsh words for the Justice Department. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) called the department "dysfunctional," while Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said "the appearances are troubling" and criticized Gonzales's handling of the issue.
"Everybody who's appointed by the White House understands that they serve at the pleasure of the president," said Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), whose home-state prosecutor was among those fired. He added that "a good leader does not just dismiss somebody for no good reason, especially if you haven't done your job in the first place. And I don't feel that the U.S. attorney general's office did their job in the first place."
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) last week led the defense of the administration and criticized Lam. But yesterday he said on PBS's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" that "if someone led us astray, they should resign, and I don't care how high it is, anyone involved with this coverup of giving us the truth needs to step down. . . . I am including anybody who would mislead, deliberately mislead the Congress. . . . If it's the attorney general who had a hand in it, then he has to step down."
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the first Democrat to call for Gonzales to resign, said the latest revelations show a "breach of trust." He said Sampson's departure increased the pressure on Gonzales to do the same.
"In fact, it raises the temperature. Kyle Sampson will not become the next Scooter Libby, the fall guy," Schumer said, referring to the former vice presidential aide recently convicted of perjury.
Staff writers John Solomon and Peter Baker and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300776_pf.html
-
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/sampsonrove-email/
-
"legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."
Considering the fact that they are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president they weren't too independent to begin with.
Now perhaps these "legal experts and former prosecutors"are too ignorant to wrap their minds around that concept, or perhaps they are confusing the way they wish things were for the way things are but it seems to me this story is not so much about the firings as it is a chance for admin critics to test out their new and improved noise machine.
-
Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys
Moving the goal posts.
What does it matter when the firings take place.
The fact remains that US Attorneys serve at the presidents pleasure.
More molehill crap
-
Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys
Moving the goal posts. What does it matter when the firings take place. The fact remains that US Attorneys serve at the presidents pleasure. More molehill crap
Especially when you consider the firings are based on the same apparent critiera. Still looking for that rational explaination vs Clintonian spin. Is there anything more precendent than an administratiuon firing every one of their prosecuters??
-
The firing of federal prosecutes who do not do what the president orders is a violation of the separation of powers act. Those are also blatant acts of obstruction of justice. The president has violated many laws and so have his cabinet members. Bush and team are doing everything they can to protect themselves from prosecution. That is why the Bush team appoint party hacks to be the Attorney General, U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Federal Prosecutes. That is how all dictators attempt to assure their absolute authority. You can forget about Justice For All and Due Process for the time being. They are not part of the Bush game plan.
-
Bush and team are doing everything they can to protect themselves from prosecution.
Not true. Bush is a law and order guy who has apprehended or killed 2/3 the leadership of al qaeda, including the mastermind Sheik Mohammad. We've never been attacked again since 9/11.
You must be thinking of Billy Clinton, who fired the Whitewater prosecutor and replaced him with his law student who then dropped the case.
I can't believe Clinton sacked 93 U.S. attorneys and no liberal or news media outlet made any hay about it at the time. By comparison to a measly 8 firings, it could have been a really big scandal. The liberals and the media said nothing. It's a double standard. And it pisses me off.
-
Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys
Moving the goal posts.
What does it matter when the firings take place.
The fact remains that US Attorneys serve at the presidents pleasure.
More molehill crap
Nope. It's not. It is, however, subversion of justice to be fired at this time in this way, and probably other things I'm not aware of.
-
Nope. It's not. It is, however, subversion of justice to be fired at this time in this way, and probably other things I'm not aware of.
How so?
-
Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys
Moving the goal posts.
What does it matter when the firings take place.
The fact remains that US Attorneys serve at the presidents pleasure.
More molehill crap
Nope. It's not. It is, however, subversion of justice to be fired at this time in this way, and probably other things I'm not aware of.
The wrong-doing was in the political considerations of the firings.
A pres can appoint and disappoint to his redneck indulgence, and can even openly pick them for their political persuasion.
But once they are in, they by the oaths they take are not permitted to connect politically with the pres on individual cases.
These judges were fired because they failed to live up to the political expediences of the Rove Cheney center. The Neocons were war-waging politically, with expectations of complete compliance, in order to better mould their political campaigns. Much concerning these judges was around vote fraud and timeliness of political inconvenience.
I am glad to see that it is those two snake senators from the southwest who will be subpoenad. They have already lawyered up.
It is important to remember that there are two nessarilly separate meanings to "political" here--the one permitted aforehand, while the political picnic is humming in harmony, and the one Monday morning, when everybody has to grow up and accept the law.
The Democrats, angered from having their faces rubbed in the continuing arrogancy factor of the Neocons, now have subpoena power, and are going to call for Rove's appearance. While they would question Rove, they would finger the emails in their hands, ready to expose Rove to be a complete and unrepentant liar.
Rove will not show.
Constitutional showdown.
Remember the new nazis the Democrats allowed into the Supreme Court.
You may remember the media coverage of these two Fieldmarshalls. We were told until we were numb that they had impecable credentials with diplomas for wallpaper.
What was less clear was getting a focus on just why talking about the fact that they were both square blue ice-locker nazis was somehow too politically incorrect for open political discussion.
-
Crane,
Clinton fired 93 at one time. Hubbell was the henchman. they were not fired for incompetence or malfeasance. They were fired for political reasons. Clinton wanted his own people on board. It's a patronage job. Simple as that.
As has been asked many of times in this very thread, why was Clinton's bloodletting OK and Bush's not?
-
Clinton fired 93 at one time. Hubbell was the henchman. they were not fired for incompetence or malfeasance. They were fired for political reasons. Clinton wanted his own people on board. It's a patronage job. Simple as that.
As has been asked many of times in this very thread, why was Clinton's bloodletting OK and Bush's not?
Which continues to go unanswered (http://www.smileyworld.com/dictionary/images/smileys/Celebrities/tyson.gif)
-
"Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration."
Ok , the irritaeing thing is that Bush put up with a large nuber of Clinton appointees for six years , if he were a decent person he would have fire every one with the the taint of the opposition party immediately .
-
Ok , the irritaeing thing is that Bush put up with a large nuber of Clinton appointees for six years , if he were a decent person he would have fire every one with the the taint of the opposition party immediately .
In the case of Iglesias and others he fired a Republican. Which i am pretty sure he is also allowed to do.
It is humorous reading charges of obstructing justice by firing these folks. Iglesias was charged with moving too slowly with bringing forth charges. The new guy might move a bit faster. Heck he might move as fast as the DA pursuing Tom DeLay. Then everyone will be happy!
-
'When the party in the White House changes hands, it is common for the new president to fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as Ronald Reagan did in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. By contrast, Bush allowed some to stay on the job for several months when he took office in 2001, although all were replaced eventually.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031400462_2.html
'
In the current controversy, Democrats have accused the Justice Department of playing politics with the prosecutors' jobs. They suggested some of the prosecutors were fired for either investigating Republicans or failing to pursue cases against Democrats. Several of the ousted prosecutors have told Congress they were improperly pressured by Republicans on pending cases.
Even some Republicans suggest the rifle-shot dismissals of the eight prosecutors was handled clumsily, raising issues of political interference with the administration of justice rather than the president's undisputed ability to make political appointments. It displayed "idiocy on the part of the administration," suggested Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a House Judiciary Committee member, warned that the Justice Department was "going to have to come up with some answers" in explaining the firings. "If they don't, they're going to lose everyone's confidence."
For Bush it all adds up to trouble ahead, trouble behind.'
___
-
ABC, CBS, CNN, FNC, NBC Morning Interviews With Gonzales All Skip “March Massacre†of 1993
Mass Amnesia Over Mass Clinton Firings
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared on five broadcast and cable network TV morning shows to comment on the sudden media-manufactured “crisis†that the Justice Department fired eight U.S. Attorneys, political appointees of the President. None of the Gonzales interviewers – at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FNC – ever mentioned that the Clinton administration fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in 1993.
How can firing eight be a “crisis†and firing 93 be not worth a solitary mention?
The TV journalists asked Gonzales 42 questions this morning, and not one touched on the previous administration. Every network asked Gonzales whether he would resign – 10 times in total. (ABC asked three, CNN asked four, the others just once.) Here’s the network breakdown.
ABC. Good Morning America wins a prize for the most visibly shameless Clinton spin against Team Bush, alternating between Hillary Clinton and George Stephanopoulos. Reporter Jake Tapper touted an exclusive interview with Mrs. Clinton and never challenged her on air with a whisper of her husband’s actions. Then came Stephanopoulos -- who was White House spokesman defending the Clintons when they canned all 93 attorneys. He pressed Gonzales like a prosecutor, asking “if it turns out that evidence of political interference does come up in these e-mails and other communications, will you resign?â€
CBS. On The Early Show, anchor Harry Smith fueled the notion of a political purge, telling Gonzales about how “the perception†is that the U.S. Attorneys were fired for not “carrying out the White House’s agenda.†He also asked: “What’s more important, the rule of law or the appetite for change at the White House?â€
CNN. American Morning anchor Miles O’Brien constantly interrupted Gonzales, badgering him to answer whether he would resign four times. O’Brien was most outrageous in using the term “mass firing†and then asserting it was unprecedented: “This is an important personnel matter – unprecedented levels of firings of U.S. Attorneys. It’s a big deal, isn’t it?†Gonzales started to say it’s “not unusual†for a “new president†to change the guard, but O’Brien interrupted: “Yeah, but we’re talking mid-term...the beginning of the second go-round.â€
FNC. On Fox & Friends, anchor Gretchen Carlson sounded like the other networks, asking if Gonzales would resign and echoing Democrats: “Chuck Schumer, senator from New York, says the buck stops with Attorney General Gonzales.†She did note that U.S. Attorneys can be fired for any reason, and asked Gonzales if he was saying they should have been told why they were fired.
NBC. On Today, anchor Matt Lauer tossed the typical blocks of accusatory liberal text at Gonzales. One was from liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus accusing him of being “an absentee landlord, chronically clueless.†The other was Sen. Charles Schumer comparing the Gonzales chief of staff that resigned, Kyle Sampson, to former Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby, saying Sampson’s resignation only “raises the temperature†of the scandal.
Back in 1993, the media had a different sense of “crisis.†Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys, and;
ABC and CBS never mentioned it.
CNN and NBC mentioned it in passing.
(FNC didn’t exist yet.)
The media do not merely arrive at the scene of a “crisis.†They are the manufacturers of “crisis.†If they decide a political action is not a “crisis,†then it is not – even when the facts of yesteryear are much more dramatic than the facts right now. — Tim Graham
Hypocrisy on grand display (http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20070314.asp)
-
Sirs,
These were Bush43 appointees, that he himself had appointed in his first term.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/important-to-karl/?resultpage=1&
***********************
via anonymous liberal
UPDATE: A number of commenters (no doubt directed here by Instapundit) are claiming that this really isn't a big deal because Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys. It's hard to understate just how silly this argument is. Yes, Clinton (and Reagan and Bush and every other president) replaced all the U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his term. This is what always happens when a Democratic administration replaces a Republican one (or vice versa). It's what Bush did when he took office. The U.S. Attorneys are political appointees. But once a U.S. Attorney is appointed, he or she is supposed to serve only the interests of justice. It is highly problematic if U.S. Attorneys are making prosecutorial decisions based on a fear of being fired by the White House. That's why no previous administration has engaged in this sort of prosecutor purge mid-term. If you don't want to take my word for this, here's what Kyle Sampson wrote in his memo to Harriet Miers last year:
In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed . . .
I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Just because someone serves at "the pleasure of the president" doesn't mean it's perfectly fine to fire them because they are bringing charges against the "wrong" people or not bringing charges against the "right" people. If U.S. Attorneys have to consider how every indictment decision might affect their job status, it would severely undermine our system of justice.
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/03/email-that-may-take-down-alberto.html
-
Sirs, These were Bush43 appointees, that he himself had appointed in his first term.
And..........................? They were fired because Bush43 apparently didn't want them any more. They were political appointees Lanya, all whopping 8 of them. And he did it because of political reasons. JUST AS CLINTON HAD. Except Clinton fired 90+ for political reasons, and there wasn't even a burp of protest. Yet the left & the mainscream media is having a hissy fit when Bush fires 8.
That's called hypocrisy. But don't let that stop you.
-
Sirs,
These were Bush43 appointees, that he himself had appointed in his first term.
So were Powell, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and John Snow. All were replaced in Bush's second term.
All of these appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. I guess liberals are too dumb to understand this?
The same people who were so silent when Clinton purged the prosecutors investigating his land deals (Whitewater) and the shenanigans of Dan Rostinkoski are the same people who are yelling so loudly now. Funny how that works. Phony hypocrites.