Documents on sacking US Attorneys released
 Documents released to RAW STORY today by the House Judiciary Committee show a Justice Department concerned with "political upheaval" over plans to push out of office some United States Attorneys who were dubbed "holdovers."
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said today that the firings appeared to suggest that the White House was using the US Attorneys as "political pawns," which he warned "undermines their critical work in fighting terrorism and risks subjecting the power of the prosecutor to partisan whims."
"Is it about political cronyism?" Conyers asks. "Is it about partisan pressure on public corruption investigations?"
Conyers promised to conclude a bill in his committee on Thursday to repeal the White House's authority to appoint US Attorneys without Senate confirmation. He also pledged to gain a full understanding of the firings of US Attorneys using his committee's oversight powers.
"We will get to the bottom of this crisis in our Justice Department with or without cooperation," he said. "I have directed my staff to engage with the Justice Department and White House to bring in officials who may have knowledge of these issues for depositions. If they fail to come forward voluntarily, we are prepared to consider further subpoenas."
E-mails suggest political motives in US Attorney sackings
Many of the e-mails were written to various Bush administration staffers by Kyle Sampson, the former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Sampson stepped down Monday after reports of his involvement in helping to remove US Attorneys from office surfaced. The e-mails start as far back as Feb. 2005 and discuss the rationale and strategies for removing US Attorneys from office for a variety of reasons.
A March 2005 attachment sent to former White House Counsel and onetime Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers draws lines through the names of US Attorneys described as "Recommend removing" because they are "ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against administration initiatives."
In Jan. 2006, one e-mail notes that Senator Pete Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who recently had an ethics complaint filed against him, had contacted the Attorney General to "discuss the criminal 'docket and caseload' in New Mexico." The e-mail further includes a detailed report on the activities of the US Attorney for New Mexico, part of which is a lengthy Power Point presentation.
A Sep. 13, 2006 e-mail sent to Miers makes note of five US Attorneys "we now should consider pushing out," as well as one "in the process of being pushed out."
Sampson first makes note of his political concerns about the tactic in this message, saying "I am only in favor of executing...if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed." The message also refers to sidestepping "home-State senators" and carrying out the plan "at less political cost to the White House."
Four days later, Miers promises to follow up. In her original Sep. 13 query to Sampson, she asks for "current thinking on holdover US attorneys."
On Sept. 20, Brent Ward, current head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, wrote to Sampson and complained, "We have two US attorneys who are unwilling to take good cases we have presented to them." Sampson says replacing them should go through "normal channels."
Nearly two months later, on Nov. 15, Sampson writes to White House staffers again, including Miers, and repeats his concerns with "political upheaval that could result" and refers to circulating it "to Karl's shop," presumably referring to White House political adviser Karl Rove.
This e-mail includes an attachment with a detailed strategy plan for forcing out six US Attorneys in Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, Washington, and New Mexico; contacting senators (or the home-state Bush "political-lead" if there is no Republican senator in the state in question); preparations for "political upheaval;" and selection of "interim" candidates, which is followed by the normal US Attorney selection process.
A Dec. 13, 2006, e-mail shows Sampson alerting a variety of Justice Department and Executive Office of the US Attorneys staff to the problems arising from the removal of the Attorneys in question. Particularly, he points to a lack of clarity about whether they would be "permitted to resign, or instead were being fired," and that the notifications were "too abrupt."
A Dec. 19, 2006, e-mail makes reference to Tim Griffin, who was appointed interim US Attorney in Arkansas. Sampson says that "getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc." after musing that he may not have been the right person to test the appointment of US Attorneys out on.
The documents are available at these links in PDF format:
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Full Conyers statement:
#
The latest round of disclosures from the Department of Justice raise new and troubling questions about the firing of six United States Attorneys.
We have just received documents from the Justice Department in the last hour and are in the process of reviewing them. At a minimum, we believe these documents show a coordinated effort, initiated by the White House, to purge every United States Attorney in the country.
Until recently, the Justice Department persisted in stonewalling the Congress with claims that these firings were "performance related." Now, these documents prove that assertion to be categorically false. We now know the original plan was to fire all the United States Attorneys. It is absurd to think that the performance of every United States Attorney in the country was sub-par and that they deserved to be fired. So this is about something else.
Is it about political cronyism? Is it about partisan pressure on public corruption investigations?
We don't know because the Justice Department and the White House continue to hide behind rationalizations and cover stories that are obviously not true. It is time to come clean.
I have directed my staff to engage with the Justice Department and White House to bring in officials who may have knowledge of these issues for depositions. If they fail to come forward voluntarily, we are prepared to consider further subpoenas.
Media accounts have raised questions about the President's and the White House role in this matter. The public deserves a full accounting of their involvement. I think the president may want to consider making himself available to answer questions from the press on this matter.
The important thing to remember is that this is an ongoing investigation and we will seek coordination with and cooperation from the White House and the Justice Department to get to the bottom of this first. We will not put the cart before the horse by demanding resignations and issuing subpoenas without first asking these individuals to voluntarily answer our questions so that we might get a better sense of what has happened and who should be held accountable.
But we will get to the bottom of this crisis in our Justice Department with or without cooperation. The United States Attorneys are entrusted with tremendous power in our criminal justice system. Using the United States Attorneys as political pawns undermines their critical work in fighting terrorism and risks subjecting the power of the prosecutor to partisan whims.
If that happened here, we deserve the truth and we deserve more accountability than the resignation of a staff member. We are looking to establish better accountability not just in how the Justice Department handled the firing of these US Attorneys, but we want to them to account for their mishandling of the national security letters.
We will markup a bill in our committee this Thursday that repeals the provision in the Patriot Act allowing US Attorneys to be appointed without Senate confirmation and next week we will hold hearings on the use of national security letters. Next Tuesday we will be holding an issue on the NSL Scandal. We are going to use our oversight authority to the best of our ability to hold this Administration accountable for their actions.
#
|
