Schlozman Testimony

Schlozman almost put Gonzales to shame with his bad memory. "I don't recall, I can't remember" It was driving the Senators crazy, especially Leahy!

But the high pitched voice of this man was almost comical. I tuned in to C-Span to listen to the testimony rather late. I didn't have the video right away so was listening to the audio. I thought a woman was speaking.

Schlozman got himself into trouble a few times as you will see later in this post. Leahy was questioning him at the time.

Here, from TPM Muckraker is a synopsis of what happened:

Bradley Schlozman pointed to Craig Donsanto in his testimony today when he was asked who gave him the go ahead to press criminal voter fraud charges days before the 2006 midterm election, in an apparent violation of agency policy.

Donsanto, though, is the director of the Election Crimes branch of the Justice Department and author of the manual outlining that policy. It seems a bit surprising that he'd be the one to approve skirting that election policy, when he'd literally written the manual.

Schlozman's account also conflicts with an email former U.S. Attorney from New Mexico, David Iglesias sent to a Department of Justice legislative aide in 2004, just before an election. The email, contained in a DOJ document dump in April, shows Donsanto's stance was on bringing charges just before an election:

There will be another meeting of the EFTF (Election Fraud Task Force) on Wed, Oct. 6. Craig Donsanto has not authorized the FBI to open any case.
...

The federal members of the EFTF should be aware of the DoJ policy of not attempting to influence the outcome of an election through investigation or prosecution. I am not aware of any prosecution which will commence before November 2, 2004. I know Donsanto would not authorize such action because he has stated the same.

Note that last line again: " I am not aware of any prosecution which will commence before November 2, 2004. I know Donsanto would not authorize such action because he has stated the same."

Perhaps Donsanto changed his mind on these matters between 2004 and 2006. But on its face Iglesias' account of Donsanto's view of this question seems starkly different from the account Schlozman provided today in his testimony.

Here's the video of his testimony:

McKay and Iglesias Say Charges may result from USAs Firing

From the Seattle Times:

Two former U.S. attorneys said today they believe ongoing investigations into the dismissals last year of eight federal prosecutors could result in criminal charges against senior Justice Department officials.

John McKay, the former U.S. attorney for Western Washington, and David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, also said they believe White House political operative Karl Rove and his aides instigated the dismissals and ultimately decided who among the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys should be fired.

McKay and Iglesias, who were among those fired, made their assertions during a meeting this morning with Seattle Times editors and reporters. The two are scheduled to appear this afternoon along with Paul Charlton, the former U.S. attorney for Arizona, during a public-policy forum on the dismissals at Seattle University's School of Law.

"I think there will be a criminal case that will come out of this," McKay said during his meeting with Times journalists. "This is going to get worse, not better."

McKay cited ongoing investigations into the dismissals by the Senate and House Judiciary committees, and inquiries now under way by the Justice Department's inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility.

McKay said he believes obstruction-of-justice charges will be filed if investigators conclude that the dismissal of any of the eight prosecutors was motivated by an attempt to influence ongoing public-corruption or voter-fraud investigations.

But is Gonzales worried? His opening statement for tomorrow's hearing starts out with an arrogant statement to the House Judiciary Committee.

From Think Progress:

Gonzales to Congress: Move on. In his opening statement to be read at tomorrow’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales challenges Congress to “move on” past the U.S. Attorney scandal and allow “the Justice Department to focus on its mission: fighting crime.”

Fredo....not a great opening statement to a House that can impeach you!!

Gonzales testimony of "I don't recall" leaves questions unanswered.

Hours and hours of testimony from Gonzales and other DOJ officials and the main question has yet to be answered. The question? Who in the Bush White House conceived the plan to fire these attorneys? Gonzales seems to know little of what is happening in his department, so the Senators say all signs seem to point to someone in the WH.

David Iglesias puts forth his advice to congress, from McClatchey Newspapers:

David Iglesias, the former New Mexico U.S. attorney and one of the eight fired last year, said investigating the White House's role is the logical next step - one that would follow existing clues about Rove's involvement.

"If I were Congress, I would say, `If the attorney general doesn't have answers, then who would?' There's enough evidence to indicate that Karl Rove was involved up to his eyeballs."

Iglesias said another clue that the White House may have been the driving force is the relative lack of Justice Department documentation for the firings in the 6,000 pages of documents turned over to Congress.

"If you want to justify getting rid of someone, you should have at least some paper trail," Iglesias said. "There's been a remarkable absence of that. I'm wondering if the paper trail is at the White House."

Even if Gonzales decides to step down - he says he won't despite widespread Republican disappointment with his performance - Democrats say they'll continue their probe into whether politics inappropriately influenced the firings.

"The arrow points more and more to the White House," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The one thing I can assure you of: This is not over, far from it."

That's why some Republicans think Gonzales should stay on the job.

snip

Rove has acknowledged passing along complaints to the Justice Department, and a former Rove aide was chosen to replace one of the fired U.S. attorneys. E-mail traffic between Gonzales' chief of staff, who's since resigned, and a Rove deputy, reveals another connection.

Another e-mail released as part of the investigation shows a Rove deputy kept Rove abreast of turns in the controversy via Rove's Republican Party e-mail account rather than Rove's White House e-mail address.

The White House isn't authorizing Rove to testify publicly or to testify privately but with a transcript.

And when Congress told the Republican National Committee to turn over all pertinent e-mails, the administration instructed the RNC to give the e-mails to the White House, not to Congress. That standoff appears headed to court.

It always seems to come back to Rove!

Domenici to Bush: "I want Iglesias gone!"

There's a great article in the Albequerque Journal about Sen. Pete Domenici and his role in the firing of David Iglesias. Seems he did more than just call Iglesias. He called Gonzales and he called Rove and finally he spoke to Bush complaining that Iglesias has to go.

So here is what happened according to the Albequerque Journal:

Domenici Sought Iglesias Ouster
Albuquerque Journal-->By Mike Gallagher

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired after Sen. Pete Domenici, who had been unhappy with Iglesias for some time, made a personal appeal to the White House, the Journal has learned.

Domenici had complained about Iglesias before, at one point going to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before taking his request to the president as a last resort.

The senior senator from New Mexico had listened to criticism of Iglesias going back to 2003 from sources ranging from law enforcement officials to Republican Party activists.

Domenici, who submitted Iglesias' name for the job and guided him through the confirmation process in 2001, had tried at various times to get more white-collar crime help for the U.S. Attorney's Office— even if Iglesias didn't want it.

At one point, the six-term Republican senator tried to get Iglesias moved to a Justice Department post in Washington, D.C., but Iglesias told Justice officials he wasn't interested.

In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out. Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president. Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about theissue. The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.

There's much more at the link. Domenici said he was getting complaints about Iglesias from "law enforcement officials to Republican Party activists". The article explaines some of this:

White-collar

In September 2005, Iglesias announced the arrests of state Treasurer Robert Vigil and his predecessor, Michael Montoya, on extortion charges. Both are Democrats in a state where Democrats control the Legislature and most statewide offices. Republicans who had complained about political corruption in the state for years saw an opportunity to do more than complain. And this was an issue with political traction.

The point man would be Iglesias. During one of his few news conferences while U.S. attorney, Iglesias called political corruption "endemic" in New Mexico. The FBI also put a high priority on public corruption, naming it its top priority behind terrorism.

According to Justice Department memos turned over to congressional investigators, Domenici approached Iglesias in late 2005 and asked if he needed additional prosecutors for corruption cases. Iglesias, according to the memo, told Domenici he didn't need white-collar crime prosecutors. He needed prosecutors for immigration cases. Domenici was disappointed in the response.

After that conversation, Domenici decided he would try to get Iglesias help, whether Iglesias wanted it or not.

In 2006, Domenici asked Gonzales if he could find additional experienced white-collar crime prosecutors to send to New Mexico. Gonzales had a number of prosecutors who were finishing the ENRON prosecutions and were quite experienced at complex white-collar crime cases.

None was sent here.

So Domenici's roll in the Iglesias firing was huge. It does show a
definate partisan slant. It also shows that Gonzales knew more about these
firings then he has admitted. Tuesday's committee meeting with Alberto
testifying will be quite interesting. And where will the Senate go with
Domenici? There's a rumor he might retire after this term.

UPDATE: From McClatchy Newspapers: Gonzales says he has `nothing to hide'

Declaring he has "nothing to hide," embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Sunday said he never sought the resignation of any U.S. attorney to influence a prosecution for political ends, but acknowledged that he and other officials made mistakes in how the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys were handled.

While acknowledging mistakes, particularly in the way the dismissals were carried out, Gonzales argued that they involved no sinister motives and no inappropriate attempt to influence prosecutions.

"I want this committee to be satisfied, to be fully reassured, that nothing improper was done," Gonzales said. "I want the American people to be reassured of the same."

He said he recalled discussions of two possible candidates to become U.S. attorneys, but indicated he could not remember what he said about them. "I do not recall making any decisions" about who should replace any of the fired prosecutors, he said.

Gonzales said he left a review of the attorneys' performance up to deputies, then signed off on their recommendations.

And what of Bush and the White House involvement:

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president did not tell
Gonzales to fire Iglesias. He also said that Gonzales did not recall discussing
with Domenici whether or not to replace Iglesias.

A White House spokesman, Trey Bohn, pointed to comments made by President Bush and his adviser Dan Bartlett last month when asked about the conversation with Domenici.

Bush said that in speaking to Gonzales about U.S. attorneys, "I never brought up a specific case nor gave him specific instructions." Bartlett said that "there was no directive given, as far as telling him to fire anybody or anything like that."

Domenici spokesman Chris Gallegos said Domenici would have no comment.