« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Dem Senators to Gonzales: Purge Was "Clumsy"
In a letter sent to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this morning, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) charged that the evidence available regarding the administration's purge of eight U.S. Attorneys showed that "the intent was to replace some of these U.S. Attorneys with others who might be more politically-connected."
They continued:
We have come to believe that this was a clumsy effort to force these U.S. Attorneys out for reasons that have little or nothing to do with their performance as prosecutors....While the President has the right to fire U.S. Attorneys, we do not believe the American people are best served if the President chooses to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons – whether to put in place young ideologues or because he is displeased with the cases the U.S. Attorney is pursuing.
We strongly believe that if a President chooses to fire U.S. Attorneys for any reason, but especially for political reasons, he should explain and justify his decision.
Both senators urged Gonzales to support legislation that would undo last year's change to the law and again ensure that U.S. Attorneys undergo Senate confirmation.
The full letter is below.
The letter in full:
March 8, 2007The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
United States Justice Department
Washington, DC 20510Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
This letter is to express our strong disappointment with how your Department has handled the cases of eight U.S. Attorneys who have been asked to resign over the past few months, and to take issue with a number of assertions you made in an op-ed in yesterday’s USA Today.
We have come to believe that this was a clumsy effort to force these U.S. Attorneys out for reasons that have little or nothing to do with their performance as prosecutors. The U.S. Attorneys who testified before the House and Senate had solid records as independent prosecutors. They are good people. And they didn’t deserve to be treated this way.
Now you write that these forced-resignations were based on “policy, priorities and management.” You also stated unequivocally before the Judiciary Committee that you “would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons.”
But these assertions don’t hold up. There is evidence suggesting that the intent was to replace some of these U.S. Attorneys with others who might be more politically-connected. This was the case with Mr. Cummins, who was replaced with a protégé of Karl Rove. And your Deputy, Paul McNulty, has acknowledged as much before the Judiciary Committee. There are suggestions that this may be the case with others as well.
The fact is that the U.S. Attorneys in question received favorable performance evaluations. This was done by several dozen independent reviewers who were asked to evaluate each U.S. Attorney’s priorities and policy decisions, as well as their prosecution statistics. When we reviewed the reports your office provided, it was clear that each of the U.S. Attorneys were individually evaluated to have a strategic plan and appropriate priorities to meet the needs of the Department and their districts.
Given these evaluations, it is difficult to now accept that the reason these U.S. Attorneys were fired was because they failed to meet the Department’s priorities. It is even harder to accept the answer, given each of the U.S. Attorneys was a rising star. It is also hard to accept that 7 U.S. Attorneys lost your confidence simultaneously, especially since all were “surprised” by the call requesting their resignation.
U.S. Attorneys are at the forefront of many of this country’s most important cases, and as each of them testified yesterday, U.S. Attorneys must have some level of independence given the seriousness of their job.
While the President has the right to fire U.S. Attorneys, we do not believe the American people are best served if the President chooses to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons – whether to put in place young ideologues or because he is displeased with the cases the U.S. Attorney is pursuing.
We strongly believe that if a President chooses to fire U.S. Attorneys for any reason, but especially for political reasons, he should explain and justify his decision.
However, the change to the law last March has wiped out Congress’s role to hold the Administration accountable for its actions.
If the Department of Justice is comfortable justifying its reasons and is committed to going through the Senate confirmation process, then the Department should also support our efforts to pass legislation requiring Senate confirmation of U.S. Attorneys.
We ask that you support this legislation and restore the independence of U.S. Attorneys.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Charles Schumer
United States Senator
Comments (29)
C92 wrote on March 8, 2007 11:04 AM:Do we know who on Spector's staff was the one that put the midnight addendum into that bill?
Was he a former Bush protege? What was the motivation? What was the payback?
The US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Patrick Meehan, used to work for Spector. Meehan has also had unusually long tenure as a US Attorney (since 9/17/01).
Since DOJ has also claimed that the eight fired USA's had been in too long, what's their comment on Meehan?
bob wrote on March 8, 2007 11:13 AM:Just look at his staff at the time. the one that has since been made an ambassador or a DA somewhere is probably the one.
my word was 'female'...maybe we should look at the females first. I have a feeling the word is strangely prophetic. A female staffer?
henk wrote on March 8, 2007 11:14 AM:What is this addendum? I haven't ever heard it explained and I am wondering if the Bushies are following the guidelines, if any, set down in it. What I had heard was that it had something to do with the ongoing war on terror, but its hard to see how these firings fit in.
Anonymous wrote on March 8, 2007 11:27 AM:Who is looking at the attorneys who were NOT fired?
drew wrote on March 8, 2007 11:35 AM:What a joke. They force out the attorneys (at least in one case, maybe more) because they refused to cave to political pressure to push the investigation of a Democratic Party member before the November elections - and this is the best Fienstein and Schumer can muster? How pathetic. Can't they see the rosey rats-ass that AG Gonzales gives about their "strong disappointment"? When are they going to get some stones and slap a supeona that weasel? I don't care if it is just to make him stand in front a Congress and get berated. I sure as hell do not pay my Federal taxes to have political hacks chasing members of my party or neglecting very serious cases of govenment corruption. I think the only thing that is more sad than event is this flacid, crouching, fearfull response from the Democratic Party.
linda wrote on March 8, 2007 11:35 AM:i called specter's wdc office on monday during the hearings and specifically asked who the staff member was who inserted that language into the patriot act; and was it typical that specter's staff inserted amendments into legislation w/o knowledge of the senator.
no one has returned the call with the requested info.
Legalize wrote on March 8, 2007 11:37 AM:The air in Congress smells so much sweeter when the body exercises its oversight duties. I only hope Sens. Fenistein and Schumer take this thing all the way. I want Abu Gonzalez impeached, indicted for perjury, and disbarred by the end of the summer.
Ad Absurdum wrote on March 8, 2007 11:40 AM:Meanwhile, behind all this semblance of earnestness, one could dream the Democratic-controlled Congress will just slip a reversal of the statute in committee behind close doors. Democrats will then only fess up as to whose aide pulled the stunt whenever Specter decides to likewise come clean.
Mark F. wrote on March 8, 2007 11:42 AM:It's not really about the addendum anymore. It's about The Honorable Alberto Gonzales once again determining that the law doesn't apply to the Bush administration.
The Political Junkie wrote on March 8, 2007 11:48 AM:Why are they asking Abu Gonzales to do anything?
They're the friggin' United States Senate. How hard can it be to go over this fool's head, repeal that clause in the Patriot Act, and prevent the wholesale firing of competent U. S. Attorneys?
Never mind....
croghan27 wrote on March 8, 2007 11:49 AM:"It's not really about the addendum anymore. It's about The Honorable Alberto Gonzales once again determining that the law doesn't apply to the Bush administration."
or worse, rather than ignore a law, they have alyered the law so it DOES apply to the political purposes of the (miss)administration.
slb wrote on March 8, 2007 11:49 AM:>>What is this addendum?
See http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002354.php (Sorry, I don't know how to make links "hot" here.)
The provision was slipped in at the request of the Justice Department, apparently. I gather from something I heard last night on -- MSNBC, I think -- that the justification that the administration gave for it was that it would allow them to quickly replace a US Attorney in the event one was killed in a massive terrorist attack on the US. But the original law allowed the president to appoint an interim for 120 days anyway, and if the person were not confirmed by the Senate within that time, then the old law provided for a replacement appointed by the federal district court. This seems perfectly adequate to me; in the event that both the Senate and the federal court system are still out of commission after 120 days, then the country would obviously have bigger problems than a vacant US Attorney chair.
But I think that reasoning was no more than a fig leaf. The fact that the firings started within just a few months after the provision eliminating the 120-day limitation on unconfirmed interim appointments is not, I suspect, coincidental.
croghan27 wrote on March 8, 2007 11:50 AM:"It's not really about the addendum anymore. It's about The Honorable Alberto Gonzales once again determining that the law doesn't apply to the Bush administration."
or worse, rather than ignore a law, they have altered the law so it DOES apply to the political purposes of the (miss)administration.
dweb wrote on March 8, 2007 11:52 AM:Only NOW....when the evidence is so compelling that this was all a political power grab by DOJ and the White House, does Congress get up on its hind legs. It is astounding to me that the Senate particularly, which has in the past guarded is privileges like a pit bull, has hardly raised a peep until now at a move which supposedly:
Was rammed through in the dead of night
Took away the privilege of Senators in the state where the USA practices to cast an eye on the proposed change
Took away the Senate's role in advise and consent on the proposed replacements.
Congress has been apallingly somnolent on this, on torture, habeas corpus, signing statements and a host of other abuses of the Constitution. One would think they just don't give a d..n.
slb wrote on March 8, 2007 11:55 AM:>>They're the friggin' United States Senate. How hard can it be to go over this fool's head, repeal that clause in the Patriot Act, and prevent the wholesale firing of competent U. S. Attorneys?<<
In the Senate? Pretty hard. The Democrats cannot do that alone; they would need a substantial number of Republican votes to get to the magic number of 60 that would be required invoke cloture, because you can bet that Bush's loyal minions among the Senate Republicans would filibuster any attempt to put anything into law that Dear Leader did not want.
eCAHNomics wrote on March 8, 2007 12:02 PM:Slate says Specter staffer was Michael O'Neill, George Mason bio link:
http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/bio.php?fac=33
I remember seeing that he was parked in Specter's office as quid pro quo for letting Specter chair Senate Judicial committee, but don't take my word on that.
Ian wrote on March 8, 2007 12:02 PM:Why isn't the aide to Specter testifying? Who asked that he put the clause into the bill? If not the Senator he's working for, then who? As an employer, shouldn't Specter be worried about an employee acting without his knowledge? Isn't there some conflict of interest also, to have Specter investigating this? Why aren't reporters asking him questions? It seems that Specter or someone in his office is the lynchpin in uncovering exactly what is up. What are the PA papers saying about him? Anyone print journalists in his state asking questions?
Bill McGuire wrote on March 8, 2007 12:16 PM:Let me get this right. Congressional members (as well as Senators) spend much of their time explaining to the American public that the other party is not believable. They then pass laws which are capable of destroying a democracy which has taken our fathers and grandfathers a couple hundred years to put together without even taking the time to read (by read, I mean examine) the bills they sign.
joshua wrote on March 8, 2007 12:23 PM:I know a few folks like that. They are very good at TELLING everyone they can somehing better than anyone else. Actually following through with the task, however, is beyond their ability or goal.
Of course, the ones I know are called CONS, and somtimes reside in a place called PRISON.
dweb: think about it, how is this Congress different from the one that was in charge when the issues you mentioned were brought up?
Make no mistake, if the Dems didn't win the 06 elections this would've been ignored and washed away in a few days.
kthejoker wrote on March 8, 2007 12:25 PM:This Slate article (http://www.slate.com/id/2161260) identifies the staffer (Dennis O'Neill, Specter's chief counsel) and gives the whole backstory on the Patriot Act language.
Malcolm wrote on March 8, 2007 12:25 PM:"In the Senate? Pretty hard. The Democrats cannot do that alone; they would need a substantial number of Republican votes to get to the magic number of 60 that would be required invoke cloture, because you can bet that Bush's loyal minions among the Senate Republicans would filibuster any attempt to put anything into law that Dear Leader did not want."
So what!!! It's the attempt which will allow the Democrats not only some pretence of having a pair, but will put the Repuglicans on public record as thwarting the attempt to hold this criminal enterprise [the Bush administration] accountable for their hijacking of American democracy. Democrats must throw off the canard that they don't stand for anything except expedience. What about the principle? Bush and his cohorts have been, and are, legally and morally wrong in so many of their actions. Put it on record!!
Ad Absurdum wrote on March 8, 2007 12:27 PM:Dear Senators Feinstein, Schumer and other senators members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate in general, when are any of you going to confront Senator Specter and ask him to come clean about the addendum, the aide, and those who instigated its insertion? Seeking such a clarification is an essential part of your oversight duties of the administration and of the ethical conduct of your peers.
linda wrote on March 8, 2007 12:40 PM:*Why isn't the aide to Specter testifying? Who asked that he put the clause into the bill? If not the Senator he's working for, then who? As an employer, shouldn't Specter be worried about an employee acting without his knowledge?*
from the senate hearings i have watched, there has been absolutely NO reference to how this amendment was slipped into the legislation -- and you can bet your ass that it's because of the collegiality of the senators -- chuck's good friend, arlen.
Ian wrote on March 8, 2007 12:50 PM:Isn't anyone asking Specter tough questions? Can the Muckraker?
It seems that a good place to start any investigation is with who at DOJ asked for the change.
Are there any investigative journalists left in Pennsylvania?
Anonymous wrote on March 8, 2007 1:09 PM:Shunning the normal route of lobbists (and the associated free dinners), Spector and his staff decided to enter into a conspiracy with rogue elements of the Department of Justice directly.
Hope the payoff was sweet...
Anonymous wrote on March 8, 2007 1:18 PM:Bush will most likely create a commission headed by Harriet Myers to look into this issue and report its findings no later than February of 2009. Other than that, I don't foresee anything coming down that won't be filibustered.
za wrote on March 8, 2007 2:09 PM:From Wikipedia on the change in interim US Attorney appointments:
The U.S. Attorney is appointed by and serves at the discretion[1] of the President of the United States for a term of four years, with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate.
The procedure for appointment of Interim U.S. Attorneys is governed by Section 546 of title 28, United States Code.[2] Section (c) states:
(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of (1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or (2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.
However, on March 9, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005[3] which amends Section 546 by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:
(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a united States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.
This, in effect, strikes the 120 days limit on interim U.S. Attorneys, and effectively extends their term to the end of the appointing President's term, which circumvents the U.S. Senate confirmation process.
The United States Senate is currently investigating this revision to the U.S. Patriot Act.
Specter and PATRIOT wrote on March 8, 2007 3:25 PM:SPECTER! PATRIOT ACT!
TPM and all blogs, please, focus on the backstory of Specter and the PATRIOT act now, and call his impartiality directly into question, so he stops stonewalling!
He's the embodiment of 'conflict of interest.' He's essentially investigating himself as his PATRIOT provision was the corner stone of this whole scandal, intentional or not.
He's clearly attempting to downplay/stonewall the scandal, as he did Iglacias, to cover his own ass.
This needs immediate media attention before the media forgets or investigators lose their nerve and let Specter and everyone else off the hook.
Focus on the backstory of Specter and the PATRIOT act now, and call his impartiality directly into question, so he stops stonewalling!
btw: Feinstein's letter was weak. It barely suffices as an opening salvo.
Yes, it reflects poorly on everyone that the PATRIOT provision even passed. It shows people aren't doing their jobs and that nobody even takes responsibility for changes in law anymore. Fool me once.... twice, how many times now?
But everybody needs to bite the bullet and fully redress these issues, now.
The longer Dems fail to correct matters which Republicans are primarily to blame for, the more they seem complicit in what is essentially a Republican scandal, and the more cynicism will grow about either party's willingness to fix government.
No more BS half measures and free passes on corruption.
ma782zda wrote on December 10, 2007 8:31 AM:c936t