Showing posts with label States Attorneys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label States Attorneys. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Bush says Gonzales stays and offers the Dems a deal to allow Meiers and Rove to speak, not testify, but speak to Congress

You have to live inside a bubble not to know what is happening today. Bush, just now on TV, said that Alberto Gonzales will stay and that the Dems are on a fishing expidition re the eight State Attorneys fired recently.

The White House made an offer to allow Miers and Rove to talk to the Senate and the House, and here's the Big BUT, not under oath and behind closed doors and no transcripts! Are they afraid of taking an oath? Seems to me if all is above board then Miers and Rove would agree to an oath.

Here's Bush's testy, arrogant press briefing from the AP:
Bush warns Dems to take offer in firings
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
3 minutes ago

President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm. "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

He added: "There's no indication ... that anybody did anything improper."

Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call to his longtime friend and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me," the president said.

The Senate, meanwhile, voted to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority. (the vote was 94-2)

Several Democrats, including presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden and John Edwards, have called for Gonzales' ouster or resignation. So have a handful of Republican lawmakers.


And here's the Deal the Dems were offered from the White House:

White House Won’t Allow Rove, Miers To Testify »
MSNBC’s Mike Viquiera: “Fred Fielding, he’s the White House counsel, he was just here meeting with the House Judiciary Committee. He made the following offer to the Congress, both House and Senate. He said Rove and Harriet Miers would be offered to the committees for their testimony in the Alberto Gonzales prosecutors scandal. However, it would be unsworn testimony, not under oath, behind closed doors, and no transcript would be permitted. Now, that is not what Congress is looking for.”

UPDATE: During a press conference, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also revealed that the White House is restricting the types of documents that it is willing to release voluntarily. Schumer said the White House is willing to turn over emails between the White House and the Justice Department, and between the White House and third parties, but not intra-White House emails. Schumer explained the problem:

So, if Karl Rove sent a communication to Harriet Miers and said, and this is purely hypothetical, “We have to get rid of US Attorney Lam. Come up with a good reason…” and the only communication we get is the good reason that Harriet Miers sent to the Justice Department.

This from Think Progress

This issue is heating up and now that several Republicans are voting against Bush, it doesn't look good for this administration. Have the Republicans had enough or is it that they are no longer afraid of the Bush admin, or is it this next election coming up?

Monday, March 19, 2007

NYT: Firing Attorneys could be against the law!

Adam Cohen, an Attorney, wrote an editorial in the New York Times titled "It Wasn’t Just a Bad Idea. It May Have Been Against the Law."

Cohen says:
It is true, as the White House keeps saying, that United States attorneys serve “at the pleasure of the president,” which means he can dismiss them whenever he wants. But if the attorneys were fired to interfere with a valid prosecution, or to punish them for not misusing their offices, that may well have been illegal.


He gives examples of crimes that could have been committed:
1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations.

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.


Go to the link for more explanations of these "crimes".

Pelosi Ask for Gonzales resignation.

Nancy Pelosi,Speaker of the House of Representatives, gave an interview to WGN-TV and met with the Trbune Editorial Board and said "I believe we need a new attorney general.''

Here's an excerpt from the Chicago Tribune:
Pelosi calls for new attorney general

By Jill Zuckman
Tribune national correspondent
Published March 19, 2007, 11:31 AM CDT
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) added her voice to the growing chorus of discontent over the Justice Department's firing of eight federal prosecutors, saying today, "I believe we need a new attorney general.''

In a meeting with The Chicago Tribune editorial board and in an interview with WGN-TV, Pelosi said there was a reason Republicans feared a Democratic victory last November.

"They knew that the era of no oversight was over and that they would have to be held accountable,'' she said, citing the scandal at Walter Reed over the treatment of wounded soldiers, as well as questions about whether politics played a role in the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

"I think what is unfolding looks pretty bad for the administration as well as Alberto Gonzales,'' Pelosi said, noting that Republicans have begun calling for his dismissal in addition to Democrats.


In this article she goes on to say:
"I don't think Alberto Gonzales fundamentally understood the difference between being the president's lawyer and the attorney general of the United States and the premier defender of the Constitution,'' she said. "I think what is important is for us to have the hearings, which will be thorough and reasoned and put the facts on the record."

"I don't think it looks good for him right now," Pelosi said of Gonzales.


So the Speaker of the House has joined many who ask for Gonzales removal from office. Some are Republicans. It's time for "Alberto" to go!

UPDATE: Arlen Spector is now on the Senate floor saying that the US Atty's should not be removed while in the middle of an investigation. He's looking for an amendment to correct this in the future.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Fallout from the Fired State Attorney-gate

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is on the hot seat. Now even Republicans are starting to call for his resignation. With Alberto, it's not just the State Attornys who have been fired, it's also the warrantless wiretapping and, I think, many of the Dems still hold him responsible for the torture decisions.

President Bush is still standing up for him but this may not last long. Pressure is coming from both sides of the aisle now.

The AP reports:
“I think the president should replace him,” Sununu said in an interview with The Associated Press. …

“We need to have a strong, credible attorney general that has the confidence of Congress and the American people,” said Sununu, who faces a tough re-election campaign next year. “Alberto Gonzales can’t fill that role.”

“I think the attorney general should be fired,” Sununu said.


Next up to be questioned....Rove:

Think Progress reports:
Today on CNN’s Situation Room, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) blew off White House signals that Karl Rove and other senior Bush officials may resist testifying before Congress on the U.S. Attorney purge.

“Frankly, I don’t care whether [White House Counsel Fred Fielding] says he’s going to allow people or not. We’ll subpoena the people we want,” Leahy said. “If they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation I suspect they don’t want to have.” Asked whether he’ll subpoena Rove, Leahy answered, “Yes. He can appear voluntarily if he wants. If he doesn’t, I will subpoena him.”

And more on Rove from the Chicago Tribune:
Former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) said Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove told him in the spring of 2001 that he should limit his choice for U.S. attorney in Chicago to someone from Illinois.

According to Fitzgerald, who was determined to bring in a prosecutor from outside the state, Rove "just said we don't want you going outside the state. We don't want to be moving U.S. attorneys around."

Fitzgerald said he believes Rove was trying to influence the selection in reaction to pressure from Rep. Dennis Hastert, then speaker of the House, and allies of then-Gov. George Ryan, who knew Fitzgerald was seeking someone from outside Illinois to attack political corruption.


Things seem to be falling apart for Bush and his admin. Truth eventually will out.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Rove being called to testify in the firing of States Attorneys hearing

Senator Schumer has asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to call White House Karl Rove to testify over the US Attorney purge. The White House acknowledged yesterday that Rove was involved.

Here's Senator Schumer's statement from Think Progress:
“The more we learn, the more it seems that people at high levels in the White House have been involved in the U.S. Attorney purge,” Schumer said. … “There’s an emerging pattern that is extremely disturbing and everyday the sanctity of U.S. Attorneys as neutral enforcers of law without fear or favor is diminished,” Schumer said. “We will get to bottom of this.”


Eventually Rove will get his due. There is still a sealed file from the Grand Jury for the Plame incident so he's not cleared yet. It will be interesting to watch how this all falls out.

UPDATE: From McClatchy: "Mr. Conyers and Ms. Sanchez intend to talk with Karl Rove about any role he may have had in the firing of the U.S. attorneys," said Sanchez spokesman James Dau.

Rove on the Hot Seat!