Also see below:     
Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy: On Authorization for Subpoenas for the US Attorney Investigation    [

    E-Mails Show Rove Role in US Attorney Firings
    By Jan Crawford Greenburg
    ABC News

    Thursday 15 March 2007

E-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with Harriet Miers.

    New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.

    The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel - weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

    The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone.

    Two independent sources in a position to know have described the contents of the e-mail exchange, which could be released as early as Friday. They put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter.

    The e-mail exchange is dated in early January 2005, more than a month before the White House acknowledged it was considering firing all the U.S. attorneys - and while Gonzales still was White House counsel. On its face, the plan is not improper, inappropriate or even unusual: The President has the right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time, and presidents have done so when they took office.

    What has made the issue a political firestorm is the White House's insistence that the idea came from Harriet Miers and was swiftly rejected.

    White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Tuesday that Miers had suggesting firing all 93 and that it was "her idea only." Snow said Miers' idea was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice.

    However, Miers was Bush's staff secretary at that time in January 2005. She did not become White House counsel for another month, after Gonzales left to become attorney general.

    The latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove both were involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand.

    According to the e-mails, Rove raised the issue with then-deputy White House Counsel David Leitch, prompting Leitch to e-mail then-Justice Department lawyer Kyle Sampson. Sampson had moved over to the Justice Department after working with Gonzales in the White House.

    Sampson responded to Leitch that he had discussed the idea with Gonzales two weeks earlier and that they were considering several different options.

 

---

Editor's Note: Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to issue subpoenas to 11 current and former Department of Justice officials as part of the panel's ongoing investigation into the firings of eight prosecutors.

The authorization covers five Department of Justice officials and six fired US attorneys. The Department of Justice officials are: Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff of the Department of Justice; Michael Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty; William Mercer, acting associate attorney general; Monica Goodling, counsel to the attorney general and White House liaison; Michael Battle, former director of Executive Office for United States Attorneys. The former US attorneys are: H. E. "Bud" Cummins III, former US attorney, Eastern District of Arkansas; David C. Iglesias, former US attorney, District of New Mexico; Carol Lam, former US attorney, Southern District of California; John McKay, former US attorney, Western District of Washington; Paul K. Charlton, former US attorney, District of Arizona; Daniel G. Bogden, former US attorney, District of Nevada.

Senator Leahy stated that he expected the committee to vote on similar authorizations within a week for White House officials Karl Rove, deputy chief of staff to the President; Harriet E. Miers, former White House counsel; and William Kelley, deputy counsel to the president. - TO/vh

---

    Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy:
    On Authorization for Subpoenas for the US Attorney Investigation

    Thursday 15 March 2007

    Over the last several months, the Judiciary Committee has used the tools at its disposal - hearings, investigation and oversight - to uncover an abuse of power that threatens the independence of U.S. Attorneys offices around the country and the trust of all Americans. We have probed the mass firings of eight U.S. Attorneys and are trying to get to the truth in order to prevent these kinds of abuses from happening again.

    In the next few days, I hope the Senate will finally debate and adopt the Feinstein-Specter-Leahy substitute favorably reported by this Committee to the Senate last month. Senator Feinstein entitled the bill "Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007." She was right. We need to close the loophole exploited by the Department of Justice and the White House that enabled this abuse to occur. For more than a month, some have blocked consideration of this bill on the floor. We sought consent to proceed on February 15th and there was objection. Senator Feinstein even sought to offer it as an amendment to S.4 but, again, there was objection.

    What we have learned this week in the few documents we have seen from the Department of Justice shows that officials at the Department and the White House chose to exploit this authority to make an end run around the Senate. It is time to roll back the change in law that has contributed to this abuse.

    But that is not the end of our job. Every time we learn more details about the ouster of these US Attorneys the story grows more troubling. Had we stopped asking questions after the testimony of the Attorney General and other Department officials, we would not know the truth.

    The White House and the Attorney General have dodged Congress's questions and ducked real accountability. In the past they have counted on a rubberstamping Congress to avoid accountability. I trust that we will work together in bipartisanship to get to the bottom of this.

    The Attorney General has admitted "mistakes were made," but he and the White House continue to stand by their actions, which have done so much to undercut the independence of federal law enforcement and to besmirch the reputations of former Bush appointees. The President of the United States and the Attorney General are not living up to their responsibility for setting the moral standard for this Administration.

    I made no secret during our confirmation proceedings of my concern whether Mr. Gonzales could serve as an independent Attorney General of the United States on behalf of the American people and leave behind his role as counselor to President Bush. The Department of Justice should serve the American people by making sure the law is enforced without fear or favor. It should not be a political wing of the White House.

    Where is the accountability? For six years accountability has been lacking in this Administration. Loyalty to the President is rewarded over all else. That lack of accountability, and lack of the checks and balances that foster it, must end. We do not need another commendation for the "heckuva job" done by those who have failed in their essential duties to the American people. True accountability means being forthcoming and there being consequences for bad actions.

    The Department finally has provided some limited factual information to us and our House Judiciary counterparts. The factual record remains incomplete, however, despite our best efforts. We do not have an agreement on witnesses and the incomplete set of documents we have received so far are redacted, leaving us without highly relevant information about the firings. We have received no documents or assurances that witnesses would be produced by the White House. The Justice Department and the White House have worn out the benefit of the doubt after so many shifting explanations and excuses and a lack of accountability or acknowledgement of the seriousness of this matter. It erodes credibility and undermines accountability when an Administration so cavalierly handles its responsibility to provide honest oversight answers to the Legislative Branch and to this Committee.

    On Tuesday, we witnessed the Attorney General himself claiming lack of personal knowledge and the need for an investigation to get to the bottom of this affair. Of course his pronouncement came almost two months after he had testified under oath before this Committee rather definitively that there was no cause for concern. The Senate Judiciary Committee opened the door to the truth by beginning this investigation and performing real oversight. I thank Senator Schumer for chairing our hearings. As I have said over the last few days, the Committee will summon whoever is needed to get to the bottom of this.

    We have asked for Administration officials and now former officials to cooperate with the Committee and I hope that they will. If they cooperate, we will not need to issue subpoenas. But we did not start to get the truth from the Department or the Administration until we put subpoena authorizations on our agenda last week.

    Just a few weeks ago this Administration's Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General failed to tell Congress the whole truth about this matter while under oath. Their explanations have not held up and now we have the resignation - or firing - of the Attorney General's Chief of Staff. I hope they cooperate, but this is too important to trust to hope. This is an Administration with a serious credibility problem. By authorizing subpoenas, the Committee maintains the flexibility it needs to move ahead with its investigation and pursue the truth.

    Through the Committee's oversight work so far, we now know some of the answers to many questions we have been asking, and the answers are not good.

    We have asked why the Administration has removed US Attorneys and not had nominees lined up to replace them. We have asked why home-state Senators were not consulted in advance. We have asked why there are now 22 districts with acting or interim US Attorneys instead of Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed US Attorneys. This includes the districts of all eight of the US Attorneys fired recently without cause. Yet the White House has nominated only three people for these 22 spots.

    We have learned that most of the US Attorneys that were asked to resign were doing their jobs well and were fired for not bending to the political will of some in Washington. Apparently, their reward for their efforts at rooting out serious public corruption is an unprecedented pink slip.

    So many critical questions remain. Why were these women and men replaced when several had significant achievements in office and glowing performance reviews? And why have their reputations been stained by those seeking to justify these firings as "performance related"? Were they simply too independent for this Administration? What were the real motivations for their firings? Who within the Administration were the moving forces behind the mass firings and who was involved? What involvement did the White House have in the legislative process that allowed this abuse of power to occur?

    I hope all Senators share the desire to get answers to these questions and many others as soon as possible. The progress we have made has only come since we put subpoenas on the agenda last week. We should authorize the subpoena authority we need to follow through and get to the bottom of the matter. Given the revelations in the press over the past few days we have added the Attorney General's successor as White House Counsel, her associate White House Counsel and Karl Rove, the President's deputy chief of staff, to the authorizations. I hope to obtain their cooperation and all relevant information without having to utilize subpoenas. Having the authority from the Committee to proceed, as needed, will be helpful in that regard.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.