Farewell, Al

In his farewell speech to DOJ employees Friday, Al had the following to say:

“We’re all human and all of us make mistakes, and the thing that’s important is to idenfity when those mistakes are made, acknowledge the mistakes, correct the mistakes and then you move on.”

Al, I am so happy you are moving on.  But, according to your own words, you should not move on - and neither should we - until you “acknowledge the mistakes [and] correct the mistakes.”

So, Al…   when will you act with some measure of grace and integrity, and “acknowledge the mistakes [and] correct the mistakes”?

Oh, oh…  that’s right.   You tucking tail and running without “acknowledg[ing] the mistakes” is about the best way of “acknowledg[ing] the mistakes [and] correct[ing] the mistakes.”   However, Al, that still leaves your own primary requirement of “acknowledge the mistakes.”

When will you finally “acknowledge the mistakes,” Al?  When will you finally admit that your personal politics - and those of the president - took precedence over prosecutorial competence at the Department of Justice?

Did Mary Beth Buchanan use her DOJ position for political purposes?

From the 4/23/07 edition of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

“Cracking down on drugs and pornography was big business in former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s Department of Justice.

When federal prosecutors in California passed on cases involving glass bongs and hard-core sex movies, Pittsburgh-based U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan swooped in and stole the show.

Critics blasted “Operation Pipe Dreams,” calling the nationwide sting on drug paraphernalia trafficking a waste of resources. Buchanan charged on, though, and in 2003 won a conviction against Tommy Chong — the Los Angeles actor made famous by the marijuana-laced “Cheech and Chong” movies.

That same year, she charged Extreme Associates and the California owners of the porn production company in the first major federal obscenity prosecution in more than a decade. Critics again wailed about resources and the government fiddling with constitutional freedoms.

The Justice Department and Ashcroft praised both cases. Buchanan was rewarded with a string of lofty posts, one of which — director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys — has landed her at the forefront of a congressional investigation into a group firing of fellow Republican prosecutors.

Buchanan will not discuss the firings or the House investigation but said the priorities of the Justice Department are those of her office — including pursuing public corruption cases. The Justice Department is reviewing a House Judiciary Committee request to speak to Buchanan and seven other Justice Department officials. She has not met with House investigators.

Democrats want to find out why the Bush administration sacked eight of the country’s 93 federal prosecutors. Democrats say they believe some U.S. attorneys were fired to interfere with public corruption cases in ways that might help Republicans.

The House Judiciary Committee has evidence that D. Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, consulted Buchanan as head of the Executive Office U.S. attorneys in 2004 and 2005 about whom to fire.

Heading the office was largely administrative and dull until 9/11, when the Justice Department began to use it to control U.S. attorneys, said Fred Thieman, a former U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh under President Clinton.

“I can’t understand why someone would want that position, unless there was some other purpose,” Thieman said.

Buchanan said she works hard and with determination, finding it an honor to serve President Bush and the Justice Department in whatever role necessary. Those who know Buchanan said she is a hard worker and does what’s needed to please her bosses.

“They ask, and she responds,” said Roscoe Howard Jr., former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. “Certainly, the objective evidence is that they like her.”

H.E. “Bud” Cummins, former U.S. attorney for eastern Arkansas and one of the eight forced to step down, said he likes and respects Buchanan. If she participated in the dismissals, though, she failed her colleagues by participating “in the completely ridiculous process of making a list of names” of people to be fired, he said.

Thomas J. Farrell, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh and frequent Buchanan critic, called Buchanan’s response to the House inquiry a litmus test for her.

“I hope she stands up for the integrity and competence of those U.S. attorneys who were fired,” he said.

Buchanan was appointed U.S. attorney for Western Pennsylvania by President Bush in September 2001.

Her office has opened at least five investigations into prominent Democrats over the past five years. Critics say she has ignored allegations against fellow Republicans during that time.

“It has been and remains the practice of my office to investigate and prosecute individuals who violate federal law without regard to their political affiliation,” Buchanan said.

Buchanan said all investigations and prosecutions are analyzed from a legal, not partisan, perspective.

She has prosecuted former Allegheny County Sheriff Pete DeFazio and aides in his office and former Allegheny County Judge Joseph Jaffe. An investigation of former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy ended without charges being filed.

“There’s no greater adherent to using public corruption charges against the other party than Mary Beth Buchanan,” said Jerry McDevitt, a defense lawyer representing Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, a Democrat, against charges he abused his former public office as Allegheny County coroner for private financial gain.

Allegations of improper use of office staff have been leveled against two Republican politicians in her jurisdiction, U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy and former state Rep. Jeff Habay. Habay was prosecuted in Allegheny County Court. No federal charges have been filed against these men, but federal authorities are prohibited from saying whether either is being investigated. “

Subpoena issued for Rice; immunity for Goodling

In rapid succession, congressional committees Wednesday ramped up their investigations of the Bush administration by approving a subpoena for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and granting immunity to a key aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Simultaneously across Capitol Hill, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved — but did not issue — a subpoena on the prosecutors’ matter to Sara Taylor, deputy to presidential adviser Karl Rove.

By 21-10, the House oversight committee voted to issue a subpoena to Rice to compel her story on the Bush administration’s claim, now discredited, that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

Joint letter issued for Gonzales
And in case Gonzales thought the worst had passed with his punishing testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the chairman and top Republican issued a new demand: Refresh the memory that Gonzales claimed had failed him 71 times during the seven-hour session.

“Provide the answers to the questions you could not recall last Thursday,” Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, wrote to Gonzales on Wednesday.

Moments earlier in the committee chamber next door, the House Judiciary Committee voted 32-6 to grant immunity to Monica Goodling, Gonzales’ White House liaison, for her testimony on why the administration fired eight federal prosecutors. The panel also unanimously approved — but did not issue — a subpoena to compel her to appear.

Specter’s letter underscored that Congress’ march against the administration isn’t driven solely by Democrats. Only six members of the House Judiciary Committee voted against immunity for Goodling — all Republicans. And several Republican lawmakers have lobbed harsh criticism at Gonzales in the two days since Bush issued a fresh statement of support for him.

“I’ll be as vigilant as ever in overseeing the Justice Department and working with other senators both Republicans and Democrats for accountability from the attorney general and the department he leads,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Wednesday’s actions indicate that Democrats plan to increase their oversight of an administration that operated for six years under Republican congressional control.

Political influence at question in firings
Democrats say they want to force into the open the story of why the eight U.S. attorneys were fired and whether they were singled out to influence corruption cases. Republicans point out that Gonzales survived a brutal Senate hearing last week with President Bush’s support and no evidence of wrongdoing in the prosecutors firings.

For his part, Gonzales tried Wednesday to mend fences on Capitol Hill. He met with a key critic, Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who has complained that Gonzales was not truthful with him over the dismissal of Bud Cummins, the former U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark.

But his outreach apparently didn’t take.

“I reiterated with the attorney general, face-to-face, that I think he should resign,” Pryor told reporters in a conference call after meeting with Gonzales in Washington. “I think it’s the best thing for the Department of Justice and it’s probably the best thing for him personally and the administration.”

 

Hatch Act Investigation

Possible ‘Illegal’ White House Activity Probed

By DEB RIECHMANN

AP

WASHINGTON (April 25) - A little-known federal investigative unit has launched a probe into allegations of illegal political activity within the executive branch, including a White House office led by President Bush ’s close adviser, Karl Rove .

The new investigation, which began several weeks ago, grew out of two other investigations still under way at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel: the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias from New Mexico and a presentation by Rove aide J. Scott Jennings to political appointees at the General Services Administration on how to help Republican  candidates in 2008.

“We’re in the preliminary stages of opening this expanded investigation,” Loren Smith, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency, said Tuesday. “The recent suggestion of illegal political activities across the executive branch was the basis we used to decide that it was important to look into possible violations of the Hatch Act.”

The office, led by Scott J. Bloch, enforces the Hatch Act, a 70-year-old law that bars federal employees from engaging in political activities using government resources or on government time.

Whether politics played an inappropriate part in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, including Iglesias, was at the heart of the controversy that has threatened Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ job. Whether executive branch employees violated federal laws that restrict them from using their posts for political activity also is at the center of the controversy about the January meeting at GSA.

“Six participants have confirmed that, at the end of the presentation, GSA Administrator Lurita Doan asked all present to consider how they could use GSA to ‘help our candidates’ in 2008,’” 25 Democrats wrote in a letter of complaint on Monday to White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten.

Among questions the senators asked Bolten:

-”Why did Mr. Jennings and his staff communicate the presentation materials which bear the White House seal, via a private e-mail account affiliated with the Republican National Committee?”

-”Does the White House consider the preparation and delivery of such a presentation to be an appropriate use of taxpayer funds?”

The Los Angeles Times, which first reported the wider inquiry, said Doan doesn’t recall making such comments.

The White House said it had not yet been contacted by the Office of Special Counsel on the matter.

White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Tuesday that it was entirely appropriate for the president’s staff to provide informational briefings to appointees throughout the federal government about the political landscape in which they implement the president’s policies. The White House said there have been other briefings at other agencies.

“People take great care to make sure that they don’t violate the Hatch Act,” Perino said, “and the Hatch Act doesn’t prohibit the giving of informational briefings to governmental employees.”

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

Conservatives: Gonzales “an unsuitable stewart of the Law”

April 16, 2007 

Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. President and Attorney General:

We, the undersigned co-founders of the American Freedom Agenda, urge the Attorney General to submit his resignation and the President to accept.

Mr. Gonzales has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution’s time-honored checks and balances.

He has brought the rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm.

He has engendered the suspicion that partisan politics trumps evenhanded law enforcement in the Department of Justice.

He has embraced legal theories that could be employed by a successor to obliterate the conservative philosophy of individual liberty and limited government celebrated by the Founding Fathers.

In sum, Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward of the law and should resign for the good of the country.

The President should accept the resignation, and set a standard to which the wise and honest might repair in nominating a successor, who will keep the law, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion.

Sincerely,

Bruce Fein, Chairman Richard Viguerie David Keene Bob Barr John Whitehead

Gonzales continues his shellgame; claims he did “nothing improper”

Nothing improper 

By Alberto R. Gonzales
Sunday, April 15, 2007; B07

My decision some months ago to privately seek the resignations of a small number of U.S. attorneys has erupted into a public firestorm. First and foremost, I appreciate the public service of these fine lawyers and dedicated professionals, each of whom served his or her full four-year term as U.S. attorney. I apologize to them, their families and the thousands of dedicated professionals at the Justice Department for my role in allowing this matter to spin into an undignified Washington spectacle.

What began as a well-intentioned management effort to identify where, among the 93 U.S. attorneys, changes in leadership might benefit the department, and therefore the American people, has become an unintended public controversy.

While I accept responsibility for my role in commissioning this management review process, I want to make some fundamental points abundantly clear.

I know that I did not — and would not — ask for the resignation of any U.S. attorney for an improper reason. Furthermore, I have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason.

Given my convictions on this issue, I testified before Congress in January and will do so again on Tuesday. I have personally spoken with many members of Congress over the past several weeks to hear their concerns about this matter. Additionally, I have instructed all Justice Department officials to make themselves available for on-the-record interviews with lawmakers and hearings before Congress, and I have ordered the release of thousands of pages of internal documents.

All of these documents and public testimony indicate that the Justice Department did not seek the removal of any U.S. attorney to interfere with or improperly influence any case or investigation. Indeed, I am extremely proud of the department’s strong record of vigorous prosecutions, particularly in the area of public corruption, where Republicans and Democrats alike have been held accountable for their crimes.

I have nevertheless asked the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility to further investigate this matter. Working with the department’s Office of Inspector General, these nonpartisan professionals will complete their own independent investigation so that Congress and the American people can be 100 percent assured of what I believe and what the investigation thus far has shown: that nothing improper occurred.

While I have never sought to deceive Congress or the American people, I also know that I created confusion with some of my recent statements about my role in this matter. To be clear: I directed my then-deputy chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to initiate this process; fully knew that it was occurring; and approved the final recommendations. Sampson periodically updated me on the review. As I recall, his updates were brief, relatively few in number and focused primarily on the review process.

During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.

I am committed to explaining my role in this process and will do so Tuesday when I testify before Congress.

I am also committed to correcting any management missteps that occurred during this process. In recent weeks I have met with more than 70 U.S. attorneys around the country to hear their concerns and discuss ways to improve communication and coordination between their offices and the Justice Department.

These discussions have been frank, and good ideas are coming out, including ways to ensure that every U.S. attorney can know whether his or her performance is at the level expected by the president and the attorney general. Additionally, I have asked for recommendations on formal and informal steps that we can take to improve all forms of dialogue between the main Justice Department and U.S. attorneys nationwide.

I am also telling our 93 U.S. attorneys that I look forward to working with them to pursue the great goals of our department in the weeks and months to come. During the past two years, we have made great strides in securing our country from terrorism, protecting our neighborhoods from gangs and drugs, shielding our children from predators and pedophiles, and protecting the public trust by prosecuting public corruption. As I have stressed repeatedly to our U.S. attorneys and others within the department, recent events will not and must not deter us from our important mission.

In part because of my own experience, I know the real strength of America. It lies in our Constitution, our people and our collective unyielding commitment to equal opportunity, equal justice, common decency and fairness. With this same commitment in my mind, I very much look forward to answering Congress’s questions about this matter on Tuesday.

ED.:  Dear Mr. Gonzales - we, the people of America, hope (and pray) you will do the right thing by either testifying without the slightest hint of obfuscation or lies, or, in the alternative, submitting your resignation forthwith.  You are not the right man to run the Department of Justice.  Resign, sir, and allow this country to move beyond your own poor job performance and the controversy you, Pete Domenici, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Monica Goodling and Heather Wilson created.  Further, I would ask that you submit a public apology for the sin you have committed against 8 very good former U.S. Attorneys.

Please don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you as you exit the building.

Yours truly,

Sauerkraut.

Washington Post/ABC Poll: Most say Politics Motivated U.S. Attorney Firings

By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 16, 2007; 8:04 AM

Two thirds of Americans, including a narrow majority of Republicans, see political motivations behind last year’s firings of eight chief federal prosecutors. But the nation is deeply divided along partisan lines about whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should lose his job over the scandal.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Gonzales faces a broadly critical public as well as Congressional scrutiny about the firings of the U.S. attorneys.

Gonzales wrote a column in the Outlook section of The Washington Post yesterday describing his role in the matter; he testifies tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In the poll, 67 percent said they believed the prosecutors were fired by the Justice Department for political reasons, not on the basis of their performance. About eight in 10 Democrats and two-thirds of independents said they saw political motivations behind the firings of the U.S. attorneys, an attitude shared by 53 percent of all Republicans surveyed.

Overall, nearly six in 10 Americans disapproved of the way Gonzales has handled the issue. Among Republicans, 47 percent expressed disapproval of how the Republican attorney general has handled the matter, with 35 percent approving and 18 percent having no opinion.

With widespread public skepticism about the firings and low approval of how the attorney general has handled the matter — 24 percent approved in this poll — 45 percent of Americans said the attorney general should lose his job over the issue. Fewer, 39 percent, said he should remain in place; 16 percent expressed no opinion.

Opinion was split along party lines: About six in 10 Democrats said he should lose his job over the issue, but a similar percentage of Republicans thought he should continue on in his position. Forty-six percent of independents said Gonzales should lose his job, 36 percent thought he should keep it and 19 percent were undecided.

This Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone April 12-15, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,141 adults. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007

The e-mails: Gonzales caught in a lie?

Gonzales aide floated replacements early on

E-Mails appear to contradict DOJ statements on genesis of attorney firings.

WASHINGTON - The attorney general’s former top aide identified five Bush administration insiders as potential replacements for sitting U.S. attorneys months before those prosecutors were fired, contrary to repeated suggestions from the Justice Department that no such list had been drawn up, according to documents released yesterday.

E-mails sent to the White House in January and May of 2006 by D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, name potential replacements for U.S. attorneys in San Diego, San Francisco, Little Rock and Grand Rapids.

The disclosures contrast with previous statements from Sampson and other Justice officials. They have said that only Tim Griffin, a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove who was later appointed the top federal prosecutor in Little Rock, had been identified as a replacement candidate before the dismissals of the sitting U.S. attorneys.

“These documents uncover one of the most central and disconcerting contradictions we’ve seen so far,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). “We have been told that there were no backups in mind to replace the fired U.S. attorneys, and these documents make it clear that there were.”

‘Sampson’s initial thoughts’
Sampson’s attorney and a Justice spokesman said yesterday that the candidates listed were only tentative suggestions and were never seriously considered. Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the list “reflects Kyle Sampson’s initial thoughts” and “in no way contradicts the department’s prior statements” about the lack of a candidate list.

Sampson told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that on Dec. 7, when seven U.S. attorneys were sacked, “I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.”

The names of the potential replacements were part of nearly 2,400 pages of documents related to the firings released by the Justice Department yesterday. They include more complete versions of e-mails and memos previously released.

The documents provide new details about a range of topics, including the Justice Department’s focus on its prosecutors’ conservative political credentials and the evolving justifications for the firings.

The release came as Gonzales continued intensive preparations for testimony next Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Democrats plan to focus on the Justice Department’s numerous conflicting statements about the firings and on Gonzales’s shifting explanations of his role. A number of Republicans have joined Democrats in demanding that Gonzales resign.

List included administration insiders
Seven U.S. attorneys were fired in December, and another was dismissed earlier in 2006, as part of a plan that originated in the White House to replace some prosecutors based in part on their perceived disloyalty to President Bush and his policies. The uproar over the removals has grown amid allegations that some Republican lawmakers improperly contacted prosecutors about investigations and assertions by Democrats that the firings may have been an attempt to disrupt public-corruption probes.

The possible replacements listed by Sampson in early 2006 were all high-level administration officials, including two suggestions for San Diego who were later given other U.S. attorney postings: Jeffrey A. Taylor, now chief prosecutor in the District, and Deborah Rhodes, now the U.S. attorney in Alabama. Both were career prosecutors in San Diego before taking senior Justice jobs.

Other candidates included Rachel L. Brand, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, who was considered to replace western Michigan’s prosecutor, and Daniel Levin, a former senior Justice and White House official who was listed as a San Francisco candidate, the memos show.

Sampson, who resigned as Gonzales’s top aide last month, said in prepared Senate testimony last month that “none of the U.S. attorneys was asked to resign in favor of a particular individual who had already been identified to take the vacant spot,” except for the prosecutor in Little Rock.

Replacements hadn’t been picked, lawyer says
Sampson’s attorney, Bradford A. Berenson, said yesterday that “testimony regarding the consideration of replacements was entirely accurate” and that “Kyle had none in mind” at the time the firings were carried out.

“Some names had been tentatively suggested for discussion much earlier in the process, but by the time the decision to ask for the resignations was made, none had been chosen to serve as a replacement,” he said.

Roehrkasse said that Brand had expressed interest in becoming the U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids but later decided against it.

One document also raises new questions about the firing of prosecutor David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, who has testified that he felt pressured by Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) to speed up indictments of Democrats before last November’s elections.

Two pages of handwritten notes by Monica M. Goodling, until recently Gonzales’s senior counselor, include this criticism of Iglesias: “Domenici says he doesn’t move cases.” The notes are undated but appear amid a set of documents relating to meetings in February of this year.

Domenici and Wilson have admitted calling Iglesias but have denied pressuring him. Domenici called Gonzales or his deputy four times to complain about Iglesias, and Gonzales also fielded complaints about him last fall from Bush and Rove.

Evolution of a rebuttal
The documents show the evolution of March 6 testimony from William E. Moschella, the principal associate deputy attorney general, to a House subcommittee. Draft versions written just days before he appeared begin with a declaration that Justice “strongly opposes” efforts to revoke Gonzales’s new authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. The scandal mushroomed in ensuing days, however, and Moschella’s testimony was reshaped as the department backed down on the legislation.

The documents also reveal new details about the Justice Department’s efforts to contain the political damage as controversy over the firings grew. On March 5, for example, chief Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos sent an e-mail to White House aides saying that Moschella should focus on admitting mistakes related to how prosecutors were notified of their dismissals.

“We are trying to muddy the coverage up a bit by trying to put the focus on the process in which they were told,” Scolinos wrote, adding that “I don’t know if the Senate Dems will let this go until it is all out in the open.”

Also released yesterday was a chart given to Gonzales in February that noted U.S. attorneys’ political backgrounds and whether they were members of the Federalist Society, a coalition of conservative lawyers and legal scholars with close ties to the Bush administration. It is not clear when the chart was compiled, nor is it clear whether the Federalist Society information is accurate.

Another document, compiling internal Justice Department “talking points” about the fired prosecutors, disparages two U.S. attorneys — in identical language — about immigration enforcement.

Article can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18100126

Excerpts from DOJ docs released yesterday:

The Justice Department on Friday released 2,400 documents to congressional panels investigating whether the firings last year of the U.S. attorneys were politically motivated.

___

Kyle Sampson, then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, wrote an Jan. 9, 2006, e-mail to then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers suggesting replacements for several U.S. attorneys who would be fired nearly a year later:

“PLEASE TREAT THIS AS CONFIDENTIAL. …

“Margaret M. Chiara. Replacement candidates: Rachel Brand?

“Harry E. ‘Bud’ Cummins III. Replacement candidates: Tim Griffin?”

On March 29, under questioning from Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Sampson said he had no replacements for the fired U.S. attorneys last Dec. 7, when the first wave of them were fired.

___

“Domenici says he doesn’t move cases.” _ Then-Gonzales counsel Monica Goodling, in undated, handwritten notes apparently setting out reasons for the dismissals. In New Mexico, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired in part because of criticism by Republican Sen. Pete Domenici.

___

The Bush administration and congressional Republicans conferred closely on how to handle testimony earlier this year from the fired U.S. attorneys and current Justice Department officials:

“Crystal and Dan Flores just called me. They are all geared up and ready to go after the former USA witnesses coming next week.” _ Feb. 28 e-mail from Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling to other Justice Department officials, referring to aides to House Judiciary Committee Republicans preparing for testimony by the fired U.S. attorneys.

___

The White House reached out to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., to fight off Democratic charges that Griffin was unqualified:

“WH political reached out to Sen. Sessions and requested that he ask helpful questions to make clear that Tim Griffin is qualified to serve.

“They requested that someone in our (Office of Legislative Affairs) call the senator’s staff and make sure that we take advantage of the offer.” _ Goodling, in a Jan. 17 e-mail to Hertling. She also included talking points on Griffin “as well as a narrative that can be used by staff and his resume.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18098314