Welcome to Gonzales Watch - Blawging the Ex-Attorney General

The internal correspondence on firing U.S. Attorneys has been posted on the House Judiciary Committee’s website.

One fascinating document is a Nov. 15, 2006 Dept. of Justice draft plan on how to fire U.S. Attorneys, and deal with corresponding political fallout. You can read it here.

You can also download 7 huge PDF files of all the documents here:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6
• Part 7

Source: House Judiciary Committee

The following plan was just released by Department of Justice showing the agency’s draft procedural plan on November 15, 2006 on how the agency should fire U.S. Attorneys:

PLAN FOR REPLACING CERTAIN
UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
November 15, 2006
STEP 1
U.S. Attorney calls: On or about November 15- 17, Mike Battle contacts the
following U.S. Attorneys:

• Paul Charlton (D. Ariz.)
• Carol Lam (S.D. Cal.)
• Margaret Chiara (W.D. Mich.)
• Dan Bogden (D. Nev.)
• John McKay (W.D. Wash.)
• David 1~1esias(D .N.M.)

Battle informs the U.S. Attorneys as follows:

• What are your plans with regard to continued service as U.S. Attorney?
• The Administration is grateful for your service as U.S. Attorney, but hasdetermined to give someone else the opportunity to senre as U.S. Attorney in your district for the final two years of the Administration.
• We will work with you to make sure that there is a smooth transition, but intend to have a new Acting or Interim U.S. Attorney in place by the end of the year.

STEP 2

Senator calls: On or about November 15- 17 (very important that Senator calls
and U.S. Attorney calls happen simultaneously), Bill Kelley or appropriate Associate
Counsel contacts the following Republican home-state Senators or, where there is no
Republican home-state Senator, the home-state “Bush political lead”:

• Jon Kyl (re Charlton)
• John Ensign (re Bogden)
• Pete Domenici (re Iglesias)
• California political lead (re Lam)
• Michigan political lead (re Chiara)
• Washington political lead (re McKay)

Kelley informs the Senators/Bush political leads as follows:

• The Administration has determined to give someone else the opportunity to serve as U.S. Attorney in [relevant district] for the final two years of the Administration.
• [Relevant U.S. Attorney] has been informed of this determination and knows that we intend to have a new Acting or Interim U.S. Attorney in place by the end of the year.
• We will look to you, Senator/Bush political lead. to recommend candidates that we should consider for appointment as the new U.S. Attorney. As always. we ask that you recommend at least three candidates for the President’s consideration. Importantly, we ask that you make recommendations as soon as possible.

STEP 3

Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval: U.S. Attorneys desiring to save their
jobs (aided by their allies in the political arena as well as the Justice Department
community), likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in office. We should expect
these efforts to be strenuous. Direct and indirect appeals of the Administration’s
determination to seek these resignations likely will be directed at: various White House
offices, including the Office of the Counsel to the President and the Office of Political
Affairs; Attorney General Gonzales and DOJ Chief of Staff Sampson; Deputy Attorney
General McNulty and ODAG staffers Moschella and Elston; Acting Associate AG Bill
Mercer; EOUSA Director Mike Battle; and AGAC Chair Johnny Sutton. Recipients of
such “appeals” must respond identically:

• What? U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President (there is no right, nor should there be any expectation, that U.S. Attorneys would be entitled to serve beyond their four-year term).
• Who decided? The Administration made the determination to seek the resignations (not any specific person at the White House or the Department of Justice).
• Why me? The Administration is grateful for your service, but wants to give someone else the chance to serve in your district.
• I need more time! The decision is to have a new Acting or Interim U.S. Attorney in place by the end of the year (granting “extensions” will hinder the process of getting a new U.S. Attorney in place and giving that person the opportunity to serve for a full two years).

STEP 4

Evaluation and Selection of “Interim” Candidates: During November-December
2006, the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Office of the Counsel to the
President, evaluates and selects candidates for Attorney General-appointment (or
candidates who may become Acting U.S. Attorney by operation of law) to serve upon the
resignation of above-listed U.S. Attorneys

STEP 5

Selection. Nomination, and Appointment of New U.S. Attornevs: Beginning as
soon as possible in November 2006, Office of the Counsel to the President and
Department of Justice carry out (on an expedited basis) the regular U.S. Attorney
appointment process: obtain recommendations from SenatorsIBush political leads and
other sources; evaluate candidates; make recommendations to the President: conduct
background investigations; have President make nominations and work to secure
confirmations of U.S. Attorney nominees.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice documents released to House Judiciary Committee

Documents were released late last night in the U.S. Attorney firings scandal that appear to catch U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a full-fledged lie to the American public.

While Gonzales Watch will release copies of the newly released documents when they’re available, the new docs show that Gonzales met for an hour on November 27, 2006 “in the attorney gneeral’s conference room” with some of his senior Justice Department aides to “review a plan to fire a group of U.S. attorneys.

The aides included Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, Gonzales’ former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson, and four other DOJ officials.

The meeting Gonzales attended to discuss firing U.S Attorneys completely contradicts statements that the Attorney General made at a March 13, 2007 news conference where he characterized himself as being far removed from the actual firing firing process.

Here is what Gonzales said on March 13, 2007 when he faced a barrage of questions about his involvement in the firings controversy:

• “…when you have 110,000 people working in the department obvously there are going to be decisions that I’m not aware of in real time.”
• “I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood. What I knew was that there was ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson, vetted through the Dpeartment of Justice, to ascertain were we could make imporvements in U.S. attorney performances around the country.” (emphasis added)
• Reporter’s Question: “Mr. [Kyle] Sampson drew up his list and are you know feeling like maybe they were removed without cause and that maybe it was an unfair removal since you were not aware of – you’re saying now you were not aware of the details of why he drew up the list? (emphasis added)”
  Gonzales’ Answers: “I stand by that decision. Again. all political appointees can be removed by the President of the United States for any reason. I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision.”

The new documents reportedly show that Gonzales is now caught in an out-and-out lie to Congress and the American people in an apparent attempt to portray himself as an aloof executive unfamiliar with the operational details of the U.S. Attorney firings.

Background:

McNulty is the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. When he was a U.S. Attorney, McNulty led the prosecution of some of this country’s highest profile terrorism cases. These include launching the case against French alleged 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, the prosecution of American Talib John Walker Lindh, and the conviction of members of a Virginia-based terrorist cell who trained with the Paikstan-based terrorist group Lashkar e-Taba.

Sampson is Gonzales’ former Chief of Staff and right-hand man who, newly released documents show, was was so intimately invovled in the firings process that he resigned.

Sampson just agreed to testify under oath before Congress next week about the U.S. Attorney firings.