Gonzales Says His Future Rests With Bush

[BettorsChat]

By MERRILL HARTSON
AP
WASHINGTON (March 14) - Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday it's up to President Bush whether he remains in the administration and said he wants to stay and explain to Congress the circumstances surrounding the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

"I work for the American people and serve at the pleasure of the president," Gonzales said. Defending himself amid an escalating political row over the replacement of a host of federal prosecutors, Gonzales said he had done a good job in the country's top law enforcement position.

"I think you can look at the record of the department in terms of what we've done ... going after child predators, public corruption cases," he said on NBC's "Today" show. "I think our record is outstanding."

Gonzales acknowledged, as he had on Tuesday, that mistakes were made in the handling of the U.S. attorney firings and said he wanted to remain in the job to make things right with Congress.

"I think we've done a good job in managing the department. .. Things are going to happen," he said. "We are going to work with Congress to make sure they know what happened. ... We want to ensure that they have a complete and accurate picture of what happened here."

Several Democrats have called for Gonzales' resignation, among them presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards.

"The buck should stop somewhere," Clinton said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" which was broadcast Wednesday morning. She added that Bush "needs to be very forthcoming -- what did he say, what did he know, what did he do?" and that high-level White House adviser Karl Rove also "owes the Congress and the country an explanation" for his role in the affair.

The firestorm of criticism has erupted in the wake of the disclosure of e-mails within the administration which showed that Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, had discussed the possible firings of U.S. attorneys in early 2005 with then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

Gonzales accepted Sampson's resignation this week; Miers had left the administration earlier this year.

It was the second time in as many weeks that Gonzales came under withering criticism on Capitol Hill. Last week, the attorney general and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller admitted that the FBI had improperly, and at times illegally, used the USA Patriot Act to secretly pry out personal information about Americans in terrorism investigations.

Gonzales, himself a former White House counsel, has been friends with Bush for years, going back to when he served as Bush's secretary of state in Texas. Bush retains full confidence in the attorney general, spokesman Dan Bartlett, traveling with Bush in Mexico. said Wednesday during the president's visit to Mexico. "He's a standup guy," Bartlett said of Gonzales.

As for the firings, Bartlett said White House officials had heard complaints from members of Congress regarding prosecutors and Bush had raised the subject during an October 2006 meeting with Gonzales. He described the exchange as "offhand" and said Bush did not name any specific prosecutors but did identify their states.

"This briefly came up and the president said, 'I've been hearing about this election fraud issue from members of Congress and want to be sure you're on top of it as well,' " Bartlett said.

Bartlett said that Gonzales had responded, "I know, and we're looking at those issues."

In the NBC appearance Wednesday, Gonzales said he had a "general knowledge" of Sampson's conversations with Miers about the prosecutors, but said "I was obviously not aware of all communications."

"I think we have an obligation to ensure where we can improve upon performance around the country," he said.

One of the ousted U.S. attorneys, David Iglesias, who was the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, told Congress had had received a call from Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., that he considered intimidating. Democrats in Congress have charged that some prosecutors were sacked because there was a belief within the administration that they were not moving quickly enough on political corruption cases involving Democrats.

Domenici acknowledged calling Iglesias but denied trying to put any pressure on the prosecutor to speed up his investigation.

Asked Wednesday if politics played a role in the firings, Gonzales said, "These firings were not politically motivated. They were not done in retaliation. They were not done to interfere with a public corruption case."

[BettorsChat]

What were they fired for?

[gbell]

What were they fired for?

No reason needed. Reason given was "performance".But what is a better question is why the lack of hoopla when B Clinton had Janet Reno fire 93 attorney generals;one of which was the Arkansas AG who was leading the Whitewater investigation. 93 is more then 8.

[BettorsChat]

No reason needed. Reason given was "performance".But what is a better question is why the lack of hoopla when B Clinton had Janet Reno fire 93 attorney generals;one of which was the Arkansas AG who was leading the Whitewater investigation. 93 is more then 8.

I don't know why were any of them fired?

[jeedd2]

What I heard: They refuserd to investigate Dems b4 the election last year.

[BettorsChat]

E-mail Shows Possible Rove Involvement in Firings
March 16th, 2007 @ 7:15am
Gene Kennedy Reporting

Eight federal attorneys fired. It's the story of the week. Now two men with Utah connections are caught in the middle of the mess.

The president's Chief of Staff is back in the news. New e-mails reveal Karl Rove may have played a role in the firing of those federal prosecutors.

Rove used to live in Utah. He's now the second person with a Utah connection tied to this. The other person is Kyle Sampson, who recently worked for the Attorney General. There are accusations he was involved in this e-mail exchange to boot the federal attorneys.

Same goes for Karl Rove. E-mails dating back to 2005 indicate that Rove asked White House lawyers to fire the federal attorneys all at once or dismiss them "selectively." Rove says the accusation is inflated with political motivations. But some senators feel he should testify about it before Congress.

Senator Charles Schumer, (D) New York: "If the White House prevents Karl Rove from testifying, it will be thumbing its nose at the American people and at the rule of law."

The president's top lawyers will tell Congress today whether Rove can testify and under what conditions. Officials from the Justice Department will be testifying voluntarily. And we could hear from Sampson, who is a BYU graduate.

This has been the story of the week, and the political war of words is just beginning.

Senator Jon Kyl, (R) Arizona: "It is clear this has not been handled well by the administration. It's also clear that Democrats are overreaching for what appear to be political reasons."

We'll see if they're overreaching in the weeks to come.

There's definitely going to be a congressional inquiry into this.

Meanwhile, more congressional criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Even Republicans are backing away from him.

One Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee says he's told White House officials that Gonzales stands no chance.

This comes after Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon said Gonzales has lost the confidence of Congress, and New Hampshire's John Sununu urged President Bush to fire Gonzales.

Senator John Sununu, (R) New Hampshire: "It's about a pattern that's put him in a position where he can't serve the president and the country effectively. That's why I think the president should remove him."

Justice Department has said officials will testify voluntarily if asked. And today we'll learn whether and under what conditions high-level White House officials, including Karl Rove, will testify.

[BettorsChat]

Rove, Gonzales discussed firings, e-mails show

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- E-mails indicate the top presidential political adviser, Karl Rove, and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales were involved in discussions of a shakeup of U.S. attorneys before Gonzales became attorney general.

A January 9, 2005, White House e-mail shows the subject was broached at least a month before the administration previously said it was -- after Gonzales' February 3, 2005, confirmation as attorney general.

The e-mail discusses the prospect of replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys in President Bush's second term and notes that Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson talked about the matter with his boss "a couple of weeks ago." Gonzales was facing Senate confirmation as attorney general at the time.

Sampson's e-mail was responding to a forwarded message originally from another White House aide, Colin Newman. Newman wrote that Rove had asked "how we were going to proceed regarding U.S. attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them or selectively replace them, etc." (Watch Rove defend the firings )

The White House said the idea for sacking federal prosecutors in Bush's second term came from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who wanted "new blood" in those offices. Miers became White House counsel after Gonzales moved to the attorney general's office.

'Rove was in the middle of this mess'
But the e-mails "show conclusively that Karl Rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said -- an assertion the White House disputed.

Eventually, the Justice Department pushed out U.S. attorneys in eight judicial districts, replacing them with interim appointees. This sparked outrage on Capitol Hill over the rare midterm shakeup and spurred calls for Gonzales' resignation from several Democratic senators and one Republican.

The interim appointments were made under a provision of the antiterrorist USA Patriot Act, which says the interim appointees can serve indefinitely without the normal Senate confirmation. (Full story)

Among those calling for Gonzales to step down was Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, who said Thursday that Gonzales lied about plans for the U.S. attorney's position in Arkansas. He said Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee the Bush administration planned to replace prosecutors appointed on an interim basis with nominees who would be confirmed by the Senate.

Gonzales said Tuesday that Sampson had managed the process and kept others in the dark, with the result that Justice Department provided "incomplete" information about the dismissals to Congress.

"As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware of a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all United States attorneys," he said. "That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive."

Thursday night, the Justice Department said Gonzales "has no recollection of any plan or discussion to replace U.S. attorneys while he was still White House counsel." (Watch the administration work on damage control )

"The period of time referred to in the e-mail was during the weeks he was preparing for his confirmation hearing, January 6, 2005, and his focus was on that," Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said in a written statement.

"Of course, discussions of changes in presidential appointees would have been appropriate and normal White House exchanges in the days and months after the election as the White House was considering different personnel changes administration-wide."

Though U.S. attorneys are political appointees who can be replaced at the president's discretion, it is rare for them to be replaced in the middle of a president's term. Suggestions they were fired for bad performance were rejected outright by the fired lawyers, some of whom have alleged political reasons for the dismissals.

The Justice Department later admitted that one of the eight -- H.E. "Bud" Cummins, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas -- was fired to make room for a former Rove aide returning from military service.

But earlier Thursday, Rove told an audience at an Alabama college that the administration had "reasonable and appropriate disagreements" with the remaining seven that justified their removals, and Democrats who control Congress "want to play politics with it."

Senate committee authorizes subpoenas
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to authorize subpoenas for five current and former Justice Department officials and six fired federal prosecutors. The subpoenas have not been served because the committee hopes the officials will testify voluntarily.

On Wednesday, White House counsel Fred Fielding held a half-hour meeting with leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees to discuss lawmakers' requests for testimony about the firings.

A senior administration official said Fielding gave no firm answers as to whether White House aides would testify. Democratic leaders gave him a Friday deadline to respond, but White House and administration officials said Bush was likely to invoke executive privilege and bar his advisers from giving public testimony.

[BettorsChat]

No reason needed. Reason given was "performance".But what is a better question is why the lack of hoopla when B Clinton had Janet Reno fire 93 attorney generals;one of which was the Arkansas AG who was leading the Whitewater investigation. 93 is more then 8.

By the way its common for New Presidents to get rid of all Attorney Generals as Clinton did so did Bush. However, its very uncommon for it to happen mid-term.

[gbell]

By the way its common for New Presidents to get rid of all Attorney Generals as Clinton did so did Bush. However, its very uncommon for it to happen mid-term.

Common..uncommon....still legal.....Is it common for Presidents to fire the very Ag's that are investigating them? And replacing the investigating AG with an intern from their very own law firm?

[BettorsChat]

Common..uncommon....still legal.....Is it common for Presidents to fire the very Ag's that are investigating them? And replacing the investigating AG with an intern from their very own law firm?

Yes, it's common, however you obviously didn't realize that.

Everything is always right with you. Can you admit that the republicans and Bush have did anything ever wrong?

[jeedd2]

Gonzalez should be fired for the torture memos.

[jcindaville]

If you guys ever found some time to stick your little Pee Pee's in one of these, you might not be so anal

Its called a pussy, try it you might find that sticking your little Pee Pee in one would do you some good

[BettorsChat]

If you guys ever found some time to stick your little Pee Pee's in one of these, you might not be so anal

Its called a pussy, try it you might find that sticking your little Pee Pee in one would do you some good

Looks like to me that you needed some directions

[gbell]

When will Republicans learn to stop apologizing?

The Bush administration is embroiled in the most ridiculous non-scandal scandal in human history — set off when the administration stupidly apologized for firing its own employees.

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. The president may fire them for any reason at all. That includes not implementing the president's policy about criminal prosecutions. It also includes being in the way of someone else whom the president wants to appoint for patronage reasons.

Why wasn't a fuss made when Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld? He is every bit as much a political appointee as the U.S. attorneys are.

Democrats have the breathtaking audacity to claim that Bush's replacing his own political appointees is "politicizing prosecutions."

They say this as Sandy Berger walks free after stealing and destroying top-secret national security documents — but Lewis "Scooter" Libby faces decades in prison for )not outing a covert agent. (Let's hope he's learned his lesson!)

They say this as Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson sits on the Homeland Security Committee while waiting for the $100,000 found in his freezer to thaw — but Tom DeLay remains under an indictment by some hick prosecutor in Texas for an alleged accounting violation.

They say this as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid draws interest on the sale of a property he sold in a complicated land swindle — but American hero Randy "Duke" Cunningham rots in prison.

They say this while Sen. Chuck Schumer pays no price whatsoever for his Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee having illegally obtained a copy of Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's credit report, for which one employee, Lauren Weiner, pleaded guilty, but served no prison time.

They say this while Sen. Teddy Kennedy is still at large (and getting larger).

Democrats have created a world in which a DNC card is a "get out of jail free" card, and "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" means "no doubt the defendant is Republican." (If Democrats keep this up, they'll have to rethink their push to give inmates the right to vote.)

Then they turn around and say Republicans are "politicizing prosecutions" by firing their own employees. And all Republicans can do is apologize.

I refuse to parse the inane allegations the Democrats are making, to point out that Clinton's wholesale firing of Republican U.S. attorneys was worse, or to mention that some of these U.S. attorneys should have been fired a long time ago (Carol Lam).

Bush should say: "We did it, it was political, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Then he should start holding hearings on Congress' obstruction of the war effort. Members of Congress should be asked to come before the administration's hearings and testify under oath about their commitment to victory. If they are not traitors, what do they have to hide? Surely they will be willing to state under oath that they are not undermining the war effort for partisan political gain.
The hearings could be televised in prime time: "Traitor or No Traitor?"

The president's investigatory power is better grounded than is Congress'. There is no "hearings and investigations" clause in Article I, describing Congress' powers, but the Recommendation Clause of Article II, Section 3 obligates the president to "from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union."

If the State of the Union is that we have a treasonous majority in Congress that is affirmatively undermining American national security, the president is constitutionally obliged to give Congress information to that effect. How can he make that judgment without gathering the necessary data?

While he's at it, the Bush hearings should look into the Democrats' hiring and firing practices. Were the dedicated staffers who worked on various committees while the Republicans were in control retained by the incoming Democrats? Or were some of those staffers fired because of their (gasp!) partisan affiliation?

Finally, just for the Democrats' mentioning Randy "Duke" Cunningham's name, Bush should pardon him immediately.

Admittedly, in this one case, the Republican was actually guilty of something. Cunningham took bribes — he didn't kill a girl at Chappaquiddick. To put it another way, the only thing Duke Cunningham ever sank was his own career.

And in one glorious afternoon over North Vietnam, Duke Cunningham did more for his county than the entire Democratic caucus will do in a lifetime.

The president has absolute authority to fire U.S. attorneys, hold investigative hearings and grant pardons. What's he worried about? That the media will be hysterical and Democrats will call him names? Constantly apologizing doesn't seem to have worked out too well for him either. How about doing something for the Americans who elected him?

Ah, but I see he has! As we go to press, news comes across the transom that Bush has withdrawn the nomination of Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium because Democrats are upset that Fox gave a donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

There's no hope.