Leahy Comments on Gonzales Resignation
By Paul Kiel - August 27, 2007, 9:24 AM
From Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT):
“Under this Attorney General and this President, the Department of Justice suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence. It is a shame, and it is the Justice Department, the American people and the dedicated professionals of our law enforcement community who have suffered most from it.
“The obligations of the Justice Department and its leaders are to the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people, not to the political considerations of this or any White House. The Attorney General’s resignation reinforces what Congress and the American people already know -- that no Justice Department should be allowed to become a political arm of the White House, whether occupied by a Republican or a Democrat.
“The troubling evidence revealed about this massive breach is a lesson to those in the future who hold these high offices, so that law enforcement is never subverted in this way again. I hope the Attorney General’s decision will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House wields over the Department of Justice and toward reconstituting its leadership so that the American people can renew their faith in its role as our leading law enforcement agency.”
Showing posts with label Gonzales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gonzales. Show all posts
Monday, August 27, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Wash Post: Gonzales illegally lied to Congress AGAIN
by John Aravosis (DC) · 7/10/2007 02:41:00 PM ET
Discuss this post here: Comment s (84) · digg it · reddit · FARK ·· Link
It's time the Congress did something final about Alberto Gonzales, our chief law enforcement officer who has repeatedly broken the law. It's a crime to lie to Congress. A crime Gonzales has committed repeatedly.
There's a reason that Democratic voters aren't happy with Democrats in Congress. We feel as if Democrats in Congress are missing opportunities. Gonzales' crimes are one such opportunity. Rather than have another hearing, or issue another statement calling on him to resign, why not do something about it? Appropriations season is coming up. Cut off all funds to Gonzales' office, or at least his salary. The GOP may filibuster the bill, let them. If it's filibustered, it dies, and so does Gonzales' salary. If the bill passes the Congress, Bush will threaten a veto. Let him. You control the appropriations, not Bush. If he vetoes the bill, we win, Gonzales still gets nothing.
Now, Bush will claim that we're hurting the war on terror by stopping the DOJ from getting its funding. Let him. You will give DOJ all the funding it needs, you simply won't give it Gonzales' salary, because he's a criminal. If Bush wants a massive showdown over the fact that he is insisting in keeping a criminal as the head of the Justice Department, we as Democrats should welcome that battle.
The reason Democratic voters are upset with Democrats in Congress is because we sometimes fear that you don't have backbone. Gonzales latest stint of criminally lying to Congress gives Democrats in Congress the opportunity they need to actually do something about a situation that needs some serious doing.
Don't just hold hearings and issue statements, don't just threaten and then back down at the last moment. Do something.
by John Aravosis (DC) · 7/10/2007 02:41:00 PM ET
Discuss this post here: Comment s (84) · digg it · reddit · FARK ·· Link
It's time the Congress did something final about Alberto Gonzales, our chief law enforcement officer who has repeatedly broken the law. It's a crime to lie to Congress. A crime Gonzales has committed repeatedly.
There's a reason that Democratic voters aren't happy with Democrats in Congress. We feel as if Democrats in Congress are missing opportunities. Gonzales' crimes are one such opportunity. Rather than have another hearing, or issue another statement calling on him to resign, why not do something about it? Appropriations season is coming up. Cut off all funds to Gonzales' office, or at least his salary. The GOP may filibuster the bill, let them. If it's filibustered, it dies, and so does Gonzales' salary. If the bill passes the Congress, Bush will threaten a veto. Let him. You control the appropriations, not Bush. If he vetoes the bill, we win, Gonzales still gets nothing.
Now, Bush will claim that we're hurting the war on terror by stopping the DOJ from getting its funding. Let him. You will give DOJ all the funding it needs, you simply won't give it Gonzales' salary, because he's a criminal. If Bush wants a massive showdown over the fact that he is insisting in keeping a criminal as the head of the Justice Department, we as Democrats should welcome that battle.
The reason Democratic voters are upset with Democrats in Congress is because we sometimes fear that you don't have backbone. Gonzales latest stint of criminally lying to Congress gives Democrats in Congress the opportunity they need to actually do something about a situation that needs some serious doing.
Don't just hold hearings and issue statements, don't just threaten and then back down at the last moment. Do something.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
At least 26 prosecutors listed for firing
WP: At least 26 prosecutors listed for firing
Justice Department weighed dismissing more than one-quarter of group
By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
The Washington Post
Updated: 4:27 a.m. ET May 17, 2007
The Justice Department considered dismissing many more U.S. attorneys than officials have previously acknowledged, with at least 26 prosecutors suggested for termination between February 2005 and December 2006, according to sources familiar with documents withheld from the public.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified last week that the effort was limited to eight U.S. attorneys fired since last June, and other administration officials have said that only a few others were suggested for removal.
In fact, D. Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales's chief of staff, considered more than two dozen U.S. attorneys for termination, according to lists compiled by him and his colleagues, the sources said.
They amounted to more than a quarter of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys. Thirteen of those known to have been targeted are still in their posts.
It is unclear how many knew they had been considered for removal. When asked yesterday about her inclusion on the lists, U.S. Attorney Paula Silsby of Maine said: "Really? I wasn't aware of that." Silsby's name crops up frequently, first in February 2005 and subsequently three more times, most recently a month before most of the dismissals were carried out last December.
The number of names on the lists demonstrates the breadth of the search for prosecutors to dismiss. The names also hint at a casual process in which the people who were most consistently considered for replacement were not always those ultimately told to leave.
When shown the lists of firing candidates late yesterday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), perhaps the most outspoken critic of the way Gonzales handled the prosecutor dismissals, said they "show how amok this process was."
"When you start firing people for invalid reasons, just about anyone can end up on a list," he said. "It looks like the process was out of control, and if it hadn't been discovered, more would have been fired."
Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department would not confirm which U.S. attorneys were included on the lists. He said they "reflect Kyle Sampson's thoughts for discussion during the consultation process" and were often compiled long before the bulk of the firings were carried out.
"Whether they are on any list or not, U.S. attorneys currently serving enjoy the full confidence and support of the attorney general and Department of Justice," Roehrkasse said.
One memo sent to Sampson last November from Michael J. Elston, chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, suggested firing Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh, who supervised the nation's prosecutors for a year and now heads the Office on Violence Against Women, sources said.
The same e-mail also listed prosecutor Christopher J. Christie in New Jersey, a major GOP donor who has undertaken several high-profile public-corruption probes -- including one into the real estate deals of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- and who announced indictments in a terrorism case last week.
‘Completely shocked’Reached last night, Christie said Elston contacted him in mid-March. Elston told him that he had put Christie's name on a Nov. 1, 2006, list, along with four other U.S. attorneys, and that a redacted copy was being turned over to Congress.
"I was completely shocked. No one had ever told me that my performance had been anything but good," Christie said. "I specifically asked him why he put my name on the list. He said he couldn't give me an explanation."
He added that Elston apologized and that he refused to accept the apology. "I still to this day don't know how I got taken off the list," Christie said.
In early 2005, Sampson briefly mentioned the idea of removing 15 to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys, but previous evidence indicated that only about a dozen prosecutors had been considered for removal.
The Justice documents that contain the names of firing candidates have been released in censored form as part of the congressional probe into the firings. The public versions of those records include only the names of U.S. attorneys that Justice has acknowledged firing last year.
But sources who have examined or been briefed on the full records identified at least 26 names, including the nine prosecutors fired last year and another, Karl K. "Kasey" Warner of Charleston, W.Va., who was dismissed in August 2005. The remaining 16 include three who resigned from their posts after appearing on one or more lists.
Several U.S. attorneys included on the lists declined to comment yesterday, and others did not respond to telephone messages.
Silsby, the chief federal prosecutor in Maine since 2001, holds an unusual status because she was appointed by a federal judge after President Bush did not nominate anyone for the position.
A spokesman for Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) said the senator recommended Silsby, an assistant U.S. attorney in that office for 24 years, to the White House based on the recommendation of a search committee. The spokesman, David Snepp, said Snowe has never had any conversations with White House or Justice officials about Silsby's performance.
Silsby said she received no complaints from Justice about her office's handling of gun cases or election fraud -- areas of administration concern about some prosecutors who were removed -- or other areas.
"If I ended up on somebody's list who thinks that I should have been replaced, that is an irrelevancy to me," she said, "because I have a job to do. That is to perform the duties and functions of the Department of Justice, to represent the Department of Justice in the most competent, ethical manner possible."
Details sketchyThe documents do not specify why removals were contemplated or why some prosecutors kept their jobs, the sources said.
Three U.S. attorneys resigned while they were under consideration for dismissal: William J. Leone of Colorado, Thomas B. Heffelfinger of Minnesota and David York of Mobile, Ala. Heffelfinger has said previously that he resigned voluntarily and had no idea he was targeted.
York stepped down in September 2005, seven months after his name appeared on Sampson's first list. According to local news accounts, York resigned while he was the subject of an internal Justice investigation.
Reached at his law office yesterday, York said of his inclusion on the list: "I think it's a non-story." He declined to comment further.
Leone was placed on a firing list in January 2006, 13 months after he took over as interim U.S. attorney. He had been the top assistant in the office and was lead prosecutor on an insider-trading case against a former Qwest Communications executive.
Leone did not return a phone call to his law office yesterday.
Another prosecutor, Anna Mills Wagoner of Greensboro, N.C., is included on three lists. Documents show that Monica M. Goodling, a Gonzales aide set to testify next week in Congress, removed her from consideration because of her work prosecuting gun crimes.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Justice Department weighed dismissing more than one-quarter of group
By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
The Washington Post
Updated: 4:27 a.m. ET May 17, 2007
The Justice Department considered dismissing many more U.S. attorneys than officials have previously acknowledged, with at least 26 prosecutors suggested for termination between February 2005 and December 2006, according to sources familiar with documents withheld from the public.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified last week that the effort was limited to eight U.S. attorneys fired since last June, and other administration officials have said that only a few others were suggested for removal.
In fact, D. Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales's chief of staff, considered more than two dozen U.S. attorneys for termination, according to lists compiled by him and his colleagues, the sources said.
They amounted to more than a quarter of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys. Thirteen of those known to have been targeted are still in their posts.
It is unclear how many knew they had been considered for removal. When asked yesterday about her inclusion on the lists, U.S. Attorney Paula Silsby of Maine said: "Really? I wasn't aware of that." Silsby's name crops up frequently, first in February 2005 and subsequently three more times, most recently a month before most of the dismissals were carried out last December.
The number of names on the lists demonstrates the breadth of the search for prosecutors to dismiss. The names also hint at a casual process in which the people who were most consistently considered for replacement were not always those ultimately told to leave.
When shown the lists of firing candidates late yesterday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), perhaps the most outspoken critic of the way Gonzales handled the prosecutor dismissals, said they "show how amok this process was."
"When you start firing people for invalid reasons, just about anyone can end up on a list," he said. "It looks like the process was out of control, and if it hadn't been discovered, more would have been fired."
Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department would not confirm which U.S. attorneys were included on the lists. He said they "reflect Kyle Sampson's thoughts for discussion during the consultation process" and were often compiled long before the bulk of the firings were carried out.
"Whether they are on any list or not, U.S. attorneys currently serving enjoy the full confidence and support of the attorney general and Department of Justice," Roehrkasse said.
One memo sent to Sampson last November from Michael J. Elston, chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, suggested firing Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh, who supervised the nation's prosecutors for a year and now heads the Office on Violence Against Women, sources said.
The same e-mail also listed prosecutor Christopher J. Christie in New Jersey, a major GOP donor who has undertaken several high-profile public-corruption probes -- including one into the real estate deals of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- and who announced indictments in a terrorism case last week.
‘Completely shocked’Reached last night, Christie said Elston contacted him in mid-March. Elston told him that he had put Christie's name on a Nov. 1, 2006, list, along with four other U.S. attorneys, and that a redacted copy was being turned over to Congress.
"I was completely shocked. No one had ever told me that my performance had been anything but good," Christie said. "I specifically asked him why he put my name on the list. He said he couldn't give me an explanation."
He added that Elston apologized and that he refused to accept the apology. "I still to this day don't know how I got taken off the list," Christie said.
In early 2005, Sampson briefly mentioned the idea of removing 15 to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys, but previous evidence indicated that only about a dozen prosecutors had been considered for removal.
The Justice documents that contain the names of firing candidates have been released in censored form as part of the congressional probe into the firings. The public versions of those records include only the names of U.S. attorneys that Justice has acknowledged firing last year.
But sources who have examined or been briefed on the full records identified at least 26 names, including the nine prosecutors fired last year and another, Karl K. "Kasey" Warner of Charleston, W.Va., who was dismissed in August 2005. The remaining 16 include three who resigned from their posts after appearing on one or more lists.
Several U.S. attorneys included on the lists declined to comment yesterday, and others did not respond to telephone messages.
Silsby, the chief federal prosecutor in Maine since 2001, holds an unusual status because she was appointed by a federal judge after President Bush did not nominate anyone for the position.
A spokesman for Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) said the senator recommended Silsby, an assistant U.S. attorney in that office for 24 years, to the White House based on the recommendation of a search committee. The spokesman, David Snepp, said Snowe has never had any conversations with White House or Justice officials about Silsby's performance.
Silsby said she received no complaints from Justice about her office's handling of gun cases or election fraud -- areas of administration concern about some prosecutors who were removed -- or other areas.
"If I ended up on somebody's list who thinks that I should have been replaced, that is an irrelevancy to me," she said, "because I have a job to do. That is to perform the duties and functions of the Department of Justice, to represent the Department of Justice in the most competent, ethical manner possible."
Details sketchyThe documents do not specify why removals were contemplated or why some prosecutors kept their jobs, the sources said.
Three U.S. attorneys resigned while they were under consideration for dismissal: William J. Leone of Colorado, Thomas B. Heffelfinger of Minnesota and David York of Mobile, Ala. Heffelfinger has said previously that he resigned voluntarily and had no idea he was targeted.
York stepped down in September 2005, seven months after his name appeared on Sampson's first list. According to local news accounts, York resigned while he was the subject of an internal Justice investigation.
Reached at his law office yesterday, York said of his inclusion on the list: "I think it's a non-story." He declined to comment further.
Leone was placed on a firing list in January 2006, 13 months after he took over as interim U.S. attorney. He had been the top assistant in the office and was lead prosecutor on an insider-trading case against a former Qwest Communications executive.
Leone did not return a phone call to his law office yesterday.
Another prosecutor, Anna Mills Wagoner of Greensboro, N.C., is included on three lists. Documents show that Monica M. Goodling, a Gonzales aide set to testify next week in Congress, removed her from consideration because of her work prosecuting gun crimes.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Senators to Gonzales: Looks like you lied under oath
Senators to Gonzales: Looks like you lied under oath
Joe Sudbay (DC)
Okay, the Senators put it more diplomatically in letter sent today to the Attorney General, but in essence, that's the gist. What known-liar Gonzales said under oath conflicts with what James Comey said under oath. My money is on Comey telling the truth:
Specifically, Mr. Comey testified that you and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card went to Mr. Ashcroft's bedside at George Washington Hospital, where he was in intensive care, in an effort to get him to agree to certify the legality of a classified program that he and Mr. Comey, who was serving as acting Attorney General at the time, had concluded should not be so certified. Mr. Comey stated that when the Administration decided to go forward with reauthorizing this classified program without that certification, he and several other Justice Department officials, including possibly Attorney General Ashcroft himself, were ready to tender their resignations. You testified last year before both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee about this incident. On February 6, 2006, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you were asked whether Mr. Comey and others at the Justice Department had raised concerns about the NSA wiretapping program. You stated in response that the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the topic of the hearing.Huh. Imagine George Bush's lawyer telling a lie -- under oath, no less. Bush and Gonzales never, ever thought they'd be held accountable for their lies. And, if the GOP still controlled Congress, they wouldn't be.Josh Marshall has video of Comey's testimony. Not to be overlooked was Comey's recollection that Bush himself had called Ashcroft's hospital room to arrange the visit by Card and Gonzales. It's worth a watch. Reading the reports about Comey's testimony don't do it justice.
Joe Sudbay (DC)
Okay, the Senators put it more diplomatically in letter sent today to the Attorney General, but in essence, that's the gist. What known-liar Gonzales said under oath conflicts with what James Comey said under oath. My money is on Comey telling the truth:
Specifically, Mr. Comey testified that you and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card went to Mr. Ashcroft's bedside at George Washington Hospital, where he was in intensive care, in an effort to get him to agree to certify the legality of a classified program that he and Mr. Comey, who was serving as acting Attorney General at the time, had concluded should not be so certified. Mr. Comey stated that when the Administration decided to go forward with reauthorizing this classified program without that certification, he and several other Justice Department officials, including possibly Attorney General Ashcroft himself, were ready to tender their resignations. You testified last year before both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee about this incident. On February 6, 2006, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you were asked whether Mr. Comey and others at the Justice Department had raised concerns about the NSA wiretapping program. You stated in response that the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the topic of the hearing.Huh. Imagine George Bush's lawyer telling a lie -- under oath, no less. Bush and Gonzales never, ever thought they'd be held accountable for their lies. And, if the GOP still controlled Congress, they wouldn't be.Josh Marshall has video of Comey's testimony. Not to be overlooked was Comey's recollection that Bush himself had called Ashcroft's hospital room to arrange the visit by Card and Gonzales. It's worth a watch. Reading the reports about Comey's testimony don't do it justice.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Impeach Gonzales: the Quickest Way to the Truth
Arianna Huffington
Bio
Impeach Gonzales: the Quickest Way to the Truth
In his weekend radio address, President Bush said of the investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings: "Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people's business."
He got it half right. If his administration continues to thwart the ability of Congress to uncover the truth about the firings, there will indeed but a "confrontation." But it will hardly be "unnecessary."
If the president continues trying to run out the clock on this scandal, Congress should immediately begin impeachment proceeding against Alberto Gonzales. It's the quickest way to the truth.
Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, Joe DiGenova said that if Congress insists on issuing subpoenas, the White House will surely contest them, and the ensuing litigation will last until the end of Bush's term. DiGenova's point was that Congress should go ahead and compromise, but my takeaway was just the opposite: if Bush's game is to stall, Congress should play the impeachment card since, as Robert Kuttner points out, "an impeachment inquiry could be completed in a matter of months."
Kuttner calls Gonzales the administration's "point man for serial assaults against the rule of law." And his sordid track record as White House counsel and AG bears this out: Guantanamo, the misuse of "national security letters," the abuse of the Patriot Act, the illegal spying on American citizens, and now his lies about his involvement in the U.S. Attorney firings.
Bush has 21 months left in office. That's far too long to continue with an Attorney General with such contempt for the law.
There was an illuminating moment about all this on Meet the Press. It might even have been a moment of divine intervention. Tim Russert was interviewing David Iglesias, one of the fired U.S. Attorneys, and asked him about a Bible verse, Proverbs 19:25, that he had referred to at the end of one his recently released emails:
Russert: "Proverbs 19:25, it caught my attention and I went to the good book and looked it up. 'Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge.' Explain why you cited that."
Iglesias: "It's interesting that you would pick that up. Actually, that's a typo. I meant to say Proverbs 19:21, which is 'Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it's the Lord's purpose that prevails.' In other words, all this mess may seem chaotic and without reason, but ultimately there's a bigger plan, there's a providential plan. So I meant to put Proverbs 19:21, not Proverbs 19:25."
I say both passages are relevant. The Lord may have an ultimate purpose that involves the meting out of justice, but doesn't absolve us from doing what we can here on earth with the tools we've been given.
Like the ability to smite a scorner. Whether Gonzales hath understanding no longer matters. To quote another verse, Matthew 7:16, "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
Alberto Gonzales' have proven to be bitter and rotten to the core. It's time for him to go.
Bio
Impeach Gonzales: the Quickest Way to the Truth
In his weekend radio address, President Bush said of the investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings: "Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people's business."
He got it half right. If his administration continues to thwart the ability of Congress to uncover the truth about the firings, there will indeed but a "confrontation." But it will hardly be "unnecessary."
If the president continues trying to run out the clock on this scandal, Congress should immediately begin impeachment proceeding against Alberto Gonzales. It's the quickest way to the truth.
Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, Joe DiGenova said that if Congress insists on issuing subpoenas, the White House will surely contest them, and the ensuing litigation will last until the end of Bush's term. DiGenova's point was that Congress should go ahead and compromise, but my takeaway was just the opposite: if Bush's game is to stall, Congress should play the impeachment card since, as Robert Kuttner points out, "an impeachment inquiry could be completed in a matter of months."
Kuttner calls Gonzales the administration's "point man for serial assaults against the rule of law." And his sordid track record as White House counsel and AG bears this out: Guantanamo, the misuse of "national security letters," the abuse of the Patriot Act, the illegal spying on American citizens, and now his lies about his involvement in the U.S. Attorney firings.
Bush has 21 months left in office. That's far too long to continue with an Attorney General with such contempt for the law.
There was an illuminating moment about all this on Meet the Press. It might even have been a moment of divine intervention. Tim Russert was interviewing David Iglesias, one of the fired U.S. Attorneys, and asked him about a Bible verse, Proverbs 19:25, that he had referred to at the end of one his recently released emails:
Russert: "Proverbs 19:25, it caught my attention and I went to the good book and looked it up. 'Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge.' Explain why you cited that."
Iglesias: "It's interesting that you would pick that up. Actually, that's a typo. I meant to say Proverbs 19:21, which is 'Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it's the Lord's purpose that prevails.' In other words, all this mess may seem chaotic and without reason, but ultimately there's a bigger plan, there's a providential plan. So I meant to put Proverbs 19:21, not Proverbs 19:25."
I say both passages are relevant. The Lord may have an ultimate purpose that involves the meting out of justice, but doesn't absolve us from doing what we can here on earth with the tools we've been given.
Like the ability to smite a scorner. Whether Gonzales hath understanding no longer matters. To quote another verse, Matthew 7:16, "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
Alberto Gonzales' have proven to be bitter and rotten to the core. It's time for him to go.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
