Welcome to Gonzales Watch - Blawging the Ex-Attorney General

In interview on today’s Meet The Press, Sen. Charles Schumer (Dem.-N.Y.), a key member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, predicated that embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would not remain in his job much longer.

I think it’s highly unlikely he survives. I, I wouldn’t be surprised if, a week from now, he’s no longer attorney general. He has just miscast his role, misperceived his role.

You can read the complete transcript of NBC’s interview with Schumer below, and watch a video replay of the interview on NBC.

Meet the Press Interview with Sen. Charles Schumer concerning U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ Firing of 7 U.S. Attorney Generals

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday, the attorney general of the United States under fire. Why were eight U.S. attorneys removed? Did the Bush administration mislead Congress? With us, from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York.

And today marks the beginning of the fifth year of the war in Iraq. Is it worth the cost in life and treasure? Should the U.S. send more troops or bring them home? With us, former Congressman Tom Andrews, director of the Win Without War coalition; former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, author of “No Retreat, No Surrender”; Richard Perle, former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; and Congressman Joe Sestak, retired vice admiral of the U.S. Navy.

But first, the attorney general will be going back to Capitol Hill to explain his role in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. With us, a man who will be a central part of those hearings, the senior senator from the state of New York, Democrat Chuck Schumer.

Welcome.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Good morning.

MR. RUSSERT: Will Alberto Gonzales survive as attorney general?

SEN. SCHUMER: I think it’s highly unlikely he survives. I, I wouldn’t be surprised if, a week from now, he’s no longer attorney general. He has just miscast his role, misperceived his role. Instead of just being the president’s lawyer who rubber stamps everything the White House wants, he has a role as attorney general as the chief law enforcement officer for the land without fear or favor. And on issue after issue, the U.S. attorneys is obviously the most prominent and most egregious. He’s bungled it. And, Tim, if they–if Attorney General Gonzales steps down, the White House has a real chance to clear the air, to restore faith that the rule of law will come first and politics second in the Justice Department, not the other way around, if they nominate somebody who, by their reputation and career, shows that they put rule of law first, a person like a Michael Mukasey, a person like a Larry Thompson, a person like a Jim Comey. These are conservative Republicans, but they put the rule of law first. And I hope that’s what the White House will do.

MR. RUSSERT: What is the state of the investigation? When will the hearings begin, and who will be part of those hearings?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, the investigation is moving along ever since it started when we were first told– when we asked just the question why were these seven U.S. attorneys fired, and they said, well, they all had bad records. And then we got hold of their evaluations, and they were all excellent. And then we found misstatement after misstatement. What’s happened thus far is this: The Justice Department has actually agreed to be cooperative, and this week the staff will take depositions of five Justice Department officials. Next week we will have them come to hearings. They’ve also given us all the documents.

Secondly, we have to get the same information from the White House. We’ve met with Fred Fielding. He is the counsel to the president. He said he wants to be as forthcoming as the Justice Department has been in terms of documents and witnesses. We’ve asked for Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, some of their assistants. And Tuesday will be D-Day because that’s the day he’s going to tell us whether he does this or not. I would give a–or I would offer a fervent plea to the White House to give us this information. It’s going to come out anyway. There are too many people in the Justice Department who, who want the information to come out because they were so upset. Just last night we heard from his attorney that Kyle Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’ chief of staff, is really–wants to come forward. It’s a real possibility that he will voluntarily testify, and he’s at the center of this. So that would really…

MR. RUSSERT: So Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff to the attorney general who has resigned, is willing to come before your committee and testify under oath.

SEN. SCHUMER: He has said that he wants to do that, and I think that’s a very likely possibility.

MR. RUSSERT: You cannot force White House aide Karl Rove or former White House Harriet Miers to come before your committee, can you?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, we can subpoena them. Senator Leahy has said he would. He’s the chair of the Judiciary Committee. They could claim privilege, but the claim of privilege is considerably weakened because the Justice Department documents already mention Karl Rove, they mention Harriet Miers. So, the way the law works, you can’t claim privilege on some occasions but not on others.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you be willing to testify–have them give a deposition rather than them come formally before your committee?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I think all that would have to be negotiated. The bottom line for us is they’d have to come under oath and tell us the truth. For instance, Karl Rove said that he–Tony Snow, rather, the president’s spokesperson, said that Karl Rove has said that he was against the firing of the U.S. attorneys, the 93 U.S. attorneys. If Karl Rove says that under oath, directly to us, that’s a lot different than Tony Snow saying it. The White House spokesperson had said, for instance, that Karl Rove was not at all involved in the “Scooter” Libby incident, and he was.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Mr. Rove. He was at the–a week ago, talked about this very issue. Let’s listen to the president’s political adviser, Karl Rove.

(Videotape, March 8, 2007)

MR. KARL ROVE: Look, by law and by Constitution, these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four-year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. But this is the right of any president to appoint people to these offices. They serve at the pleasure of the president, and my view is that this is, and unfortunately, a very big attempt by some in the Congress to make a political stink about it.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Rove’s point is that President Clinton dismissed all 93 U.S. attorneys. President Bush can fire any U.S. attorney he wants, and you’re just simply making a political stink about it.

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I think Karl Rove doesn’t get it. Here’s the problem. Of course, every president has the right to hire and fire U.S. attorneys at will. Every president, when they come in in a new term, like President Clinton did, basically cleans house and puts in new U.S. attorneys. Ronald Reagan did within his first year, George Bush, the first, did within his first year, and this president, Karl Rove’s employer, George Bush, our present President George Bush did it. All the U.S. attorneys were replaced. What’s different here is not simply that the president wanting this choice, not that choice, but, in these instances, the evidence is becoming more and more overwhelming that certain U.S. attorneys, and only certain ones, not all of them, but certain U.S. attorneys were fired because either they wouldn’t prosecute a case that was politically advantageous to the White House or they were prosecuting a case that was disadvantageous to the White House. Every legal commentator, left, right, center, says you can’t do that, that’s the one thing you can’t do.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, let’s be specific about this because I want to show you what the attorney general said in January testifying before your committee. Let’s watch Alberto Gonzales.

(Videotape, January 18, 2007)

MR. ALBERTO GONZALES: I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have any evidence that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation?

SEN. SCHUMER: We do have evidence. In fact, four of the U.S. attorneys who were fired believe that played a role in their removal. Remember, these folks were called up all of a sudden on December 7th. They thought they were doing, doing a good job. They said, “You’re not doing–you’re fired.” “Why?” “We can’t tell you.” Then they say–there’s a little pressure. They say they weren’t doing their job right. We get hold of the evaluations done by their peers, the judges, everyone in their district, they all get outstanding ratings. And then it comes out that in four of these instances, they were asked to pursue cases, individual cases, not a general policy, they were asked to pursue individual cases that they thought they shouldn’t or they were perhaps pressured to stop. So, yes, there is evidence there in the–in the U.S. attorney’s mind.

But, Tim, we don’t have proof yet, conclusive, beyond a reasonable doubt proof. That’s why we have to go forward with the investigation.

MR. RUSSERT: But this is a very serious charge, Senator. Let me show you a map of the United States and where these U.S. attorneys come from. There you’ll see up in Michigan and then we have them in New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Arkansas, Washington state and two in California. Where specifically did a U.S. attorney stop investigating or was a criminal justice case interrupted because of one of their removals?

SEN. SCHUMER: The most notorious is the Southern District of California, San Diego. Ms. Lam, the U.S. attorney, had already brought about the conviction of Duke Cunningham. It came out in the newspapers that she was continuing to pursue that investigation and it might lead to others, legislative and others. And in the middle of this investigation, she was fired. So I asked the deputy attorney general, “Why was she fired?” He said, “Well, she wasn’t doing enough immigration re-entry cases.” I said, “Really?” She–he said, did you tell–I asked him, “Did you tell her?” She said yes. I said, “Well, did she improve?” This was back in the summer. “Did she improve?” He said, “I have no idea.” Well, gee whiz, if you’re firing someone in the middle of the most heated political investigation in America, don’t you think you ought to have a reason and know the reason?

MR. RUSSERT: But go back to, again, Bill Clinton, back in 1993, when he fired all the U.S. attorneys. The New York Times wrote an editorial saying that the president had tainted the political process and the judicial process, and there was concern that, in fact, a U.S. attorney who was investigating Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski, a Democrat, was removed a few weeks before he was going to make a major decision regarding an investigation.

SEN. SCHUMER: But with Bill Clinton, it was all of the U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his term, which every president has done. The New York Times may think that U.S. attorneys should stay on regardless of the president. There’s a good argument for that, but that’s apples and oranges. That is not picking out individual U.S. attorneys who are involved in very hot political cases and getting rid of them because things were getting too hot. It’s a world of difference.

MR. RUSSERT: But if you cannot prove that, in fact, a criminal investigation was interfered with, then this is all just political complaint and nothing happens.

SEN. SCHUMER: Oh, no. Tim, this is very serious stuff. Now, whether it reaches the level of criminality is one thing. But the U.S. attorneys are the chief law enforcement officer for federal law in each of their districts. At the head of the Justice building, on top of each Justice building, when you walk in, is that eagle with the arrows clutched in her claws, and that symbolizes law without fear or favor. And if U.S. attorneys, when they’re doing hot political cases–we’ve had a tradition–we’ve had a tradition for decades that they have some independence while–once they’re appointed and once they’re in office with an existing president. And if U.S. attorneys are to fear that if they pursue these cases against politicians that they will be fired, they won’t do it.

And let me make one other point. Let us say, a month from now, some U.S. attorney somewhere in the U.S. indicts a politician, and that politician’s lawyer gets up and says what lawyers often say in these situations, “It’s politics.” Now more people are going to believe that. So the rule of law, without fear or favor, is so important to this country. When you fire U.S. attorneys for political reasons, it’s serious. And look, this is not just Chuck Schumer or the Democrats. They say it’s political? Ask John Sununu. Ask Gordon Smith. Ask the large number of Republican officeholders who have said this is very wrong as well. This is far deeper than politics.

MR. RUSSERT: Paul McNulty, the deputy attorney general, came before the Judiciary Committee in February, was asked about this, and this was his response.

(Videotape, February 6, 2007)

MR. PAUL McNULTY (Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee): All of the changes that we made were performance-related.

(End of videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Is that accurate?

SEN. SCHUMER: That’s totally inaccurate. Paul McNulty himself, I know him, he called me on the phone and said, “I am sorry that I didn’t tell you the truth. I was not told that these things were happening by the people who were supposed to brief me.” Now, one of those people is Kyle Sampson, Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff to the attorney general. And Kyle Sampson says everyone knew what was going on here. We have to get to the bottom of this.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, in fact, Kyle Sampson’s attorney, Brad Berenson, wrote this last night–on Friday, excuse me. “The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject since the election was well-known to a number of other senior officials at the department, including others who were involved in preparing the department’s testimony to Congress.”

SEN. SCHUMER: You bet.

MR. RUSSERT: So the people who prepared Paul McNulty knew about this?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, that’s what Kyle Sampson says, and we have a conflict in testimony. And we have the stories keep changing from so many people. You know, a good lawyer will tell you, when the witnesses keep changing their stories, they’re usually not telling the truth and they have something to hide. Our investigation has to get to the bottom of just that.

MR. RUSSERT: There was an e-mail on Friday that was released from two members of the White House counsel staff regarding Karl Rove, and it said this: “Karl Rove stopped by to ask you, (roughly quoting) `how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them.” Now, Mr. Rove could easily say he was simply asking the question: What was the White House counsel’s office doing or recommending?

SEN. SCHUMER: That is exactly true, and we don’t know yet Karl Rove’s exact position and actions. That’s why we want to talk to him under oath directly. But I will tell you this, just a few days before, the White House said that the only person who was involved in this decision in the–in the White House was Harriet Miers. Then two days later, it comes out that Karl Rove has done it. here is my advice, for what it’s worth, I don’t know if they’ll take it or not, to the White House: Gather all the facts. Gather them all together. Come clean with them. Give them to our committee. Let the witnesses testify. Let’s see where this all goes, and then we can take corrective action to make sure it doesn’t happen again. To let it leak out, to let stories keep contradicting each other is no good for the administration, it’s no good for the Justice Department, and, most of all, it’s no good for America. So let’s, let’s get all the facts out. Let’s look at them thoughtfully, carefully, thoroughly. Let’s not flinch from them, but then let’s take corrective action and move on.

MR. RUSSERT: There are some supporters of the president who are saying “Schumer–Chuck Schumer’s a member of the Judiciary Committee, but he’s also chairman of the campaign committee to elect Democratic senators, and this is all about politics.”

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, this is much too serious to be about politics, and the bottom line is our committee is simply looking into the misdeeds in the executive branch, in the Justice Department, in the administration. Anything that has to do with any elected official, any congressman, any senator, will be handled by the ethics committee. So there’s no conflict whatsoever.

MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Senator Chuck Schumer, we thank you for sharing your views.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: And our viewers should know, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declined our invitation to join us this morning on MEET THE PRESS.
Technorati: Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney, White House, Sen. Charles Schumer

The Washington Post is reporting that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had a conference call with U.S. Attorneys on Friday apologizing for how he ‘handled’ firing U.S. Attorneys.

One of those listening in was one of the seven U.S. Attorneys recently fired by the Justice Department at the now increasingly apparent intention of the White House.

Margaret Chiara (inset), the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan was one of those fired.  Coincidentally, she was able to listen in to Gonzales’ mea culpa since her last day on the job was that same day: Friday. March 16, 20006.