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

GOP still waiting for Gonzales to take a hike

Newsweek

April 30, 2007 issue – The pressure on Alberto Gonzales to resign intensified last week following his daylong grilling before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The embattled attorney general was repeatedly unable to recall virtually anything about last year’s firings of eight U.S. attorneys. GOP senators—hoping for a strong performance—were visibly pained when Gonzales couldn’t remember a crucial Nov. 27, 2006, meeting (noted on his calendar), when he was briefed by his chief of staff about the firing plan. “Senator, I have searched my memory. I have no recollection of the meeting,” Gonzales told GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions. The A.G. was even unable to recall a meeting where President Bush passed along complaints about the three U.S. attorneys—a talk that Bush himself has publicly recalled. (Gonzales said he now “understands” he had such a conversation.)

With that performance, Gonzales lost the Hill. When he spoke with the attorney general on Friday, Sessions urged Gonzales to “take the weekend” to determine whether he can still “be an effective leader,” he said later in a statement. Rep. Adam Putnam, chairman of the House Republican Conference, called on Gonzales to step down—echoing a position that a group of top House GOPers privately delivered to Bush earlier in the month. “He’s done something I didn’t think possible. He’s lost the confidence of almost all the Republicans in Congress,” said one top GOP strategist who is close to the White House, anonymous when talking about sensitive personnel matters. A big GOP concern: Gonzales’s continued presence will make it hard to move measures important to the party’s base, like immigration reform, through the judiciary committees, said the strategist.

But Gonzales himself was hanging tough. “We believe the burden is now on the Democrats to prove that something improper occurred here—and they haven’t done that,” said a top Justice official (who asked not to be ID’d talking about nonpublic matters). Publicly, the White House was standing by its A.G. One White House adviser (who asked not to be ID’ed talking about sensitive issues) said the support reflected Bush’s own view that a Gonzales resignation would embolden the Dems to go after other targets—like Karl Rove. “This is about Bush saying, ‘Screw you’,” said the adviser, conceding that a Gonzales resignation might still be inevitable. The trick, said the adviser, would be to find a graceful exit strategy for Bush’s old friend.

The Democrats show no sign of backing down, demanding documents and threatening subpoenas for internal e-mails from the White House and the Republican National Committee (aides working for Rove frequently used RNC BlackBerrys). That’s not the only threat. The Office of Special Counsel, a federal agency that investigates whistle-blower complaints, recently sent document requests to the White House and the Justice Department relating to the firing of one of the prosecutors, David Iglesias of New Mexico, according to an official familiar with the probe, requesting anonymity to discuss an ongoing case. (The office also is seeking e-mails relating to a complaint that the General Services Administration was used to promote GOP political candidates, a potential violation of the Hatch Act.) The requests ensure that whatever happens to Gonzales, the investigations will continue.

- Michael Isokoff

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.

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.

Battle contradicts Gonzales’ Statements on Firings

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane, Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 16, 2007; A04

The former Justice Department official who carried out the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year told Congress that several of the prosecutors had no performance problems and that a memo on the firings was distributed at a Nov. 27 meeting attended by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, a Democratic senator said yesterday.

The statements to House and Senate investigators by Michael A. Battle, former director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, represent another potential challenge to the credibility of Gonzales, who has said that he never saw any documents about the firings and that he had “lost confidence” in the prosecutors because of performance problems.

Battle’s statements, relayed to reporters yesterday by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), came as Gonzales prepares for a make-or-break appearance on Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Prepared testimony released yesterday indicates Gonzales will apologize to the fired prosecutors for the way they were treated and will acknowledge that he has been “less than precise” in describing his role in the firings.

But Gonzales will also hold firm to his contentions that any missteps were “honest mistakes,” that “nothing improper” took place, and that most of the details were handled by his then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, according to the testimony.

“I have nothing to hide and . . . I am committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here,” Gonzales says in his remarks.

“I made mistakes in not ensuring that these U.S. attorneys received more dignified treatment,” he adds later. “Others within the Department of Justice also made mistakes. As far as I know, these were honest mistakes of perception and judgment and not intentional acts of misconduct.”

Seven U.S. attorneys were fired on Dec. 7, and another was dismissed earlier, 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 repeated misstatements by Gonzales and other Bush administration officials about the scope and nature of the dismissals. Democrats have also seized on presidential senior adviser Karl Rove’s connection to some of the firings, and on revelations last week that the White House and the Republican National Committee have lost e-mails that are supposed to be preserved under record-keeping laws.

Gonzales and his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, initially told Congress that the firings were due to “performance-related” problems. Subsequent e-mails and other documents released by Justice showed that most had positive job reviews, that they and other U.S. attorneys were ranked on whether they were “loyal Bushies,” and that Gonzales was more deeply involved in the process than he has sometimes acknowledged.

The statements by Battle, who left his job last month, are the first details to emerge from more than 20 hours of interviews with four top Gonzales aides over the past two weeks by staff members on the House and Senate Judiciary committees. The last of those interviews was conducted yesterday with Sampson, who testified publicly last month that he was only an “aggregator” of information on the firings and that ultimate responsibility rested with Gonzales.

Battle told investigators that he was “not aware of performance problems with respect to several” of the prosecutors when he called to fire them, Schumer said in a conference call with reporters yesterday.

Schumer said Battle also contradicted Gonzales’s assertion at a March 13 news conference that he had not seen any documents or participated in any discussions about the firings. A memo related to the dismissals was passed out at a Nov. 27 meeting attended by Gonzales and others, Battle told investigators.

“Mike Battle remembers a memo was distributed,” Schumer said.

In his prepared remarks for Tuesday, Gonzales says “my statement about ‘discussions’ was imprecise and overbroad, but it certainly was not in any way an attempt to mislead the American people.”

Gonzales also addresses new documents released Friday showing that Sampson had identified five potential replacement prosecutors in early 2006, which appeared to contradict testimony from Sampson and repeated statements from Justice officials that no such list had been drawn up. Gonzales will testify that he remembers being told about two possible replacements, but that neither was approved and no one was lined up when the last seven firings were carried out.

Schumer and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary panel, immediately criticized Gonzales’s planned testimony as falling short of answering key questions about the firings.

“The attorney general has offered another in a series of contradictory statements about the mass firing of U.S. attorneys,” Leahy said. “It has been impossible to discern the truth in this matter based on the shifting explanations and changing stories coming out of the Justice Department and White House.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the committee’s ranking Republican, also said Gonzales should consider reinstating the fired U.S. attorneys.

Specter and fellow Republican Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said Gonzales has an “uphill” climb to restore his credibility with Congress. Numerous Democrats and some Republicans have called on Gonzales to resign.

“He needs to explain what he did and why he did it,” Graham said yesterday on “Fox News Sunday.” “There are three or four different versions of his role in this, and he needs to bring clarity to what he did and why he did it.”

In a related matter yesterday, an attorney for Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who faces an ethics inquiry into his role in the firings, declined to comment on an Albuquerque Journal report that Domenici directly contacted Rove to push for the firing of David C. Iglesias as New Mexico’s U.S. attorney.

The report said Domenici’s call to the White House came after a late October phone conversation with Iglesias about a local corruption case. Iglesias has testified he felt the call amounted to improper political pressure and believes it lies at the heart of his firing.

Domenici has acknowledged that he complained to Gonzales and McNulty about Iglesias, and has said he told the Justice Department he wanted Iglesias replaced “some months” before the call. But he has never acknowledged calling the White House about the issue.

Thousands of pages of documents released by Justice have yet to explain the rationale for Iglesias’s firing. In his testimony last month, Sampson could not recall why Iglesias was put on the list, which did not happen until Nov. 7, less than two weeks after Domenici’s call to Iglesias.

 www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041500548_pf.html

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