A defiant President Bush vowed Tuesday to fight any effort by Congress to compel the testimony of top White House advisers about the firing of federal prosecutors, setting up a potential constitutional showdown and the first major direct confrontation with the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill.
The president also defended embattled Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and accused Democrats more broadly of trying to score “political points” rather than “gather facts” over the dismissal of eight United States attorneys. He offered instead to release all White House communications related to the issue and to allow the aides to be interviewed privately but not under oath, a proposal that Democrats rejected.
“There is no indication that anybody did anything improper,” the president said in a brief statement in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. “We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.”
The president said he would challenge in court any subpoena of his top aides. After days of limited comment, Bush moved to take the offensive on the issue at a time when his popularity is near all-time lows.
Democratic leaders said they would press ahead with plans to subpoena Bush’s chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and others.
The White House’s offer to let Rove and others answer congressional questions “doesn’t do the job of figuring out what happened,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Fred Fielding, the president’s general counsel, said the White House is attempting to fully cooperate, explaining in a letter to congressional leaders that “the president must remain faithful to the fundamental interests of the presidency and the requirements of the constitutional separation of powers.”
At the same time, Fielding wrote, more than 3,000 pages of documents delivered to Capitol Hill by the Justice Department this week “do not reflect that any U.S. attorney was replaced to interfere with a pending or future criminal investigation.”
`Nothing to fear’
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), complaining that the Justice Department has provided conflicting stories about the prosecutors’ firings, said: “If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.”
The threat of subpoenas isn’t the only political fire the White House is trying to put out. With Democratic leaders, and some Republicans, calling for Gonzales’ resignation, Bush had telephoned his attorney general, his longtime friend from Texas, shortly after dawn Tuesday with “a very strong vote of confidence.”
“He’s got support with me. I support the attorney general,” the president said later.
The White House also rejected as “just flat false, period,” news reports that the administration already is considering replacements for Gonzales.
But Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has a candidate for Gonzales’ replacement: Chicago-based U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald, whom Gonzales’ top aide had privately graded as “not distinguished.”
The rankings of Fitzgerald and the 92 other U.S. attorneys, in part according to their perceived loyalty to Bush, has stoked congressional anger at Gonzales.
Fitzgerald wrote the U.S. government’s indictment of Osama bin Laden and in 2002 he won the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service for prosecuting the terrorists who bombed the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
The documents delivered from the Justice Department to Congress shed little new light on the controversy. But they provided a window on behind-the-scenes confrontations between some of the prosecutors who would eventually be fired and critics in Congress and the department, as well as a taste of the human cost of the upheaval.
In an Aug. 31, 2006, e-mail, for example, Brent Ward, the head of a Justice Department anti-pornography task force, complained to a department colleague he had “sat in a meeting with [prosecutor] Paul Charlton in Phoenix and heard him thumb his nose at us” with a reluctance to take on obscenity cases. Ward also complained about another fired prosecutor, Daniel Bogden of Nevada.
Seven of the eight prosecutors were fired Dec. 7, while the eighth, Bud Cummins of Arkansas, resigned in June and was succeeded by a Rove protege.
As awareness of the firings increased in January, Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty and other officials involved in the dismissals assembled a list of talking point criticisms of each of the dismissed prosecutors for use in congressional testimony.
Bogden, for example, was found to have a “lack of energy and leadership for a highly visible district with serious crime issues,” while Charlton was tagged with “repeated instances of defiance, insubordination, actions taken contrary to instructions and actions taken that were clearly unauthorized.”
Carol Lam of the Southern District of California was criticized for “failure to perform in relation to significant leadership priorities (i.e. immigration and gun crime.)”
The documents also revealed the anguish of at least one prosecutor, Margaret Chiara of the western district of Michigan, who complained she had been smeared by “the notoriety of being one of the `USA 8′” and asked McNulty to pull strings to get her a job training prosecutors.
“Will you please intervene to make this position available to me?” she asked McNulty in an e-mail on Feb. 9, 2007.
Eight days earlier, Chiara e-mailed McNulty complaining that “now that it has been widely reported that departing USAs have either failed to meet performance expectations or that they acted independently . . . the situation is so much worse. You know that I am in neither category. This makes me so sad. Why have I been asked to resign?”
Some records were redacted, including one that seemed to indicate that additional prosecutors may have been marked for dismissal.
Under ordinary circumstances, the Justice Department would not need to explain firings of U.S. attorneys because they serve at the pleasure of the president.
Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush replaced nearly all 93 U.S. attorneys at the start of their first terms.
But some of the fired prosecutors complained of being pressured by lawmakers in connection with politically sensitive investigations.
One of the sacked prosecutors, David Iglesias of New Mexico, said he felt “leaned on” after inquiries in 2006 from two Republicans, Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, regarding a corruption investigation involving a prominent Democrat.
Gonzales’ pullback
Gonzales also has had to retreat from early assurances to Congress that the White House played a minimal role in the dismissals after records released by the Justice Department showed that discussions about replacing prosecutors began shortly after the 2004 election and included a proposal by then-White House counsel Harriet Miers to fire all 93 prosecutors.
Perhaps most provocatively, Gonzales’ former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, in March 2005 ranked prosecutors using criteria including “loyalty to the president and attorney general.”
Sampson resigned March 12. A Justice Department spokesman referred questions about the rankings to Sampson. Sampson’s attorney did not return a call seeking comment.
Conspicuous by his silence in the records is Gonzales, who, according to a spokesman, does not use e-mail, making him less likely to leave a paper trail.
– – –
EXCERPTS FROM JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS
Excerpts from Justice Department documents
Excerpts from Justice Department documents turned over to Congress:
Feb. 1, 2007: e-mail from Justice Department aide Michael Elston to department official Richard Hertling with a copy to Alberto Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson:
Subject: Bud Cummins
Just called to let me know that Pryor’s and Schumer’s staff have called and asked him to testify on Tuesday. He declined, but wanted to know if we wanted him to testify — would tell the truth about his circumstances.
Feb. 1, 2007: response from Sampson to others in the department, including No. 2 official Paul McNulty, the deputy attorney general:
Subject: Re: Bud Cummins
I don’t think he should. How would he answer: Did you resign voluntarily? Were you told why you were being asked to resign? Who told you? When did they tell you? What did they say? Did you ever talk to Tim Griffin about his becoming U.S. attorney? What did Griffin say? Did Griffin ever talk about being AG appointed and avoiding Senate confirmation? Were you asked to resign because you were underperforming? Were you asked to resign because you were underperforming? If not, then why?
Feb. 1, 2007: e-mail from U.S. Atty. Margaret Chiara to Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty:
Subject: WDMI
Paul: … Michael Elston informed me that I must vacate my position by March 1. Therefore, I plan to announce my resignation on the afternoon of Feb. 14 or the morning of Feb. 15. I need all the time, salary and benefits available so my resignation will be effective on Feb. 28.
FYI: Everyone who knows about my required resignation, primarily our USA colleagues and people who are providing references, is astonished that I am being asked to leave. Now that it has been widely reported that departing USAs have either failed to meet performance expectations or that they acted independently … the situation is so much worse. You know that I am in neither category. This makes me so sad. Why have I been asked to resign? The real reason, especially if true, would be a lot easier to live with. Margaret.
March 4, 2007: e-mail from Chiara to McNulty:
Subject: WDMI
Paul: As you know, I have assiduously avoided public comment by pursuing an informal version of the “witness protection program” in order to elude reporters! However, the legal community in Grand Rapids and organizations throughout Michigan are outraged that I am being labeled “a poor performer.” Politics may not be a pleasant reason but the truth is compelling. Know that I am considered a personification of ethics and productivity.
Oct. 17, 2006: e-mail from Sampson to Elston:
Subject: FW: United States Attorneys
See below for my list of U.S. Attorneys we should consider replacing. Does it match up with yours.
Jan. 3, 2007: e-mail from U.S. Atty. David Iglesias to Paul McNulty:
Paul: Happy New Year . . .
Is there a good time I can call you . . . to discuss what day my resignation will become effective? I have asked for a two month extention when I talked to Mike Battle on 7 Dec. 06 and have heard nothing definite back. I assure you my call will be pleasant and respectful.
March 4, 2007: Kyle Sampson memo to Paul McNulty and others
Draft talking points.
– Clinton fired all Bush USAs in one fell swoop. Has been described to me as `have your offices cleared out by the end of the week.’
– We fired all Clinton USAs (except Mueller and Warner), but staggered it more and permitted some to stay on for several months (including Mary Jo White in SDNY who we permitted to stay for many months . . .
— Associated Press and Tribune staff, e-mails released by Congress.
———-
mdsilva@tribune.com
azajac@tribune.com
