Silence of the lamb, Alberto Gonzales

What Gonzales isn’t saying is as important as what he claims he cannot recall.  His lack of recollection gives the appearance that he’s trying to keep Karl Rove out of the spotlight.

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18141171/site/newsweek

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.

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