Welcome to Gonzales Watch - Blawging the Ex-Attorney General

After yesterday’s demand by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter that the U.S. Attorney General comply with the May 2, 2007 subpoena that he did not respond to by the Monday’s May 15th deadline, the Justice Department replied late yesterday with a carrot-on-a-stick response. What did they claim to have?

Only one e-mail cc’ing White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove that concerning the firing, hiring, or political issues behind the massive U.S. Attorney terminations.

In practical terms, what did the Justice Department’s response contribute to the ongoing investigation by Congress into alleged politically-motivated White House control of Justice Department prosecutions?

Most would conclude nothing. Nada. Rien. Niente. Zilch. ничего. אפס .لا شي. Nichts. 何も.

In the reply (inset, below) from Principal Deputy Attorney General Richard A. Hertling, he alleged that the DOJ’s Office of Information and Privacy found only “two identical e-mail chains, one in Kyle Sampson’s e-mail account and the other in Courtney Elwood’s account, that are responsive to the subpoena.”

One e-mail addresses a McClatchy newspaper article on the firing of David Iglesias, the former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, and communications with Sen. Pete Domenici’s office. The e-mail is from the President’s Special Assistant and White House Deputy Political Director Jeffrey Jennings to Karl Rove, White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Kevin Sullivan, Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino, andGonzales’ ex-Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson. White House Political Director Sarah Taylor is cc’d on the e-mail:

A second e-mail in the chain is, again, from Jennings:

These e-mails, however, do reveal one important detail: they contain Karl Rove’s non-White House “back-channel” e-mail in connection that he used for White House correspondence. That’s a violation of federal law, specifically, the Presidential Records Act whose purpose is to mandate the preservation of all work-related correspondence e-mails.

They also reveal that newly appointed White House Counsel Fred Fielding knew Rove was using his RNC e-mail (kr@georgewbush.com) for White House business. Fielding was cc’d on the e-mail turned over to the Committee. More on that later.

Incredibly, Hertlin notes that it returned Rove’s e-mail and “electronic media” (i.e., his hard drive) that remain the subject of the subpoena “to Mr. Rove’s counsel, Mr. Robert Luskin, in a sealed condition.” The only way for the Judiciary Committee to take another shot at a forensic analysis and review of Rove’s e-mail appears to be litigating this out in court.

Here is the Justice Department’s carrot-on-a-stick response, suggesting there may be more Rove e-mails to come. In fact, Hertling hints that there could be more: “We are continuing to search for documents responsive to the Committee’s subpoena.”

Perhaps the most thorough grilling of U.S. Attorney General Gonzales before the House Committee on the Judiciary today was from Rep. Robert Wexler (Dem. - Fla.).

In the relatively short time that he was alloted, Wexler put the Attorney General through a meticulous grilling. What remains most impressive about his questioning of Gonzales (who testified under oath), is that he secured admissions from Gonzales about who did not decide to fire the former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, David Iglesias.

By process of elimination, Wexler’s examination suggests that an even more credible case could emerge as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove being the one who might have been responsible for Iglesias’ termination.

Here are excerpts from today’s exchange between Rep. Wexler and Attorney General Gonzales. Please note that inadvertent omissions of complete sentences and testimony from both parties are likely to be missing, due to an inability to simultaneously type the entire transcript verbatim during the hearing. You’ll get the gist. Feel free to comment, and link to, missing portions of the testimony.

Wexler: Karl Rove spoke with you about voter fraud in New Mexcio in Oct. 2006?

Gonzales: Yes.

Wexler: Iglesias appeared on the list on Election Day in November 2006

Gonzales: Yes, I believe so.

Wexler: You did not select him [for the list].

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: Kyle Sampson testified that he did not select [the U.S. Attorneys on the list].

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: Did McNulty select them?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: Did Margolies select them?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: Did the President select him?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: Did the Vice President select him?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: All of the Assistant and former U.S. Attorneys did not select them?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: You made a decision as to “accepting” the list

You won’t tell the American people who you put the former U.S. Attorney on the list. It’s the great national secret!

Wexler: So you don’t know who put him [Iglesias] on the list?

Gonzales: I wasn’t surprised to see him on the list

Wexler: You will not come forth and tell the American people who put Mr. Iglesias on the list to fire him.

Do you know what Mr. Moschella told the Committee? He was an “absentee landlord”

Gonzales: I haven’t made any decision with respect to Mr. Iglesias.

Wexler: But you, Mr. attorney general, don’t you run the Department of Justice?

Statement of Chairman Patrick Leahy,
Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing On “Department Of Justice Oversight”
Witness: Attorney General Gonzales
April 19, 2007

This week we join in mourning the tragic killings at Virginia Tech on Monday. The innocent lives of students and professors are a terrible loss for their families and friends and for their community. It affects us all. We honor them and mourn their loss.

I expect that in the days ahead, as we learn more about what happened, how it happened and perhaps why it happened, we will have debate and discussion and perhaps legislative proposals to consider. I look forward to working with Department of Justice and specifically with Regina Schofield, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, and others to make improvements that can increase the safety and security of our children and grandchildren in schools and colleges.

Today, the Department of Justice is experiencing a crisis of leadership perhaps unrivaled during its 137-year history. There is the growing scandal swirling around the dismissal and replacement of several prosecutors, and persistent efforts to undermine and marginalize career lawyers in the Civil Rights Division and elsewhere in the Department.

We hear disturbing reports that politics may have played a role in a growing number of cases. I have warned for years against the lack of prosecutorial experience and judgment throughout the leadership ranks of the Department. We are seeing the results amid rising crime, rampant war profiteering, abandonment of civil rights and voting rights enforcement efforts, and lack of accountability. This Justice Department seems to have lost its way.

The Department of Justice must not be reduced to another political arm of the White House. The Department of Justice must be worthy of its name. The trust and confidence of the American people in federal law enforcement must be restored.

Since Attorney General Gonzales last appeared before this Committee on January 18th, we have heard sworn testimony from the former U.S. Attorneys forced from office and from his former Chief of Staff. Their testimony sharply contradicts the accounts of the plan to replace U.S. Attorneys that the Attorney General provided to this Committee under oath in January and to the American people during his March 13th press conference.

The Committee is still seeking documents, information and testimony so that we may know all of the facts, the whole truth, surrounding the replacement of these prosecutors who had been appointed by President Bush.

One thing already abundantly clear is that if the phrase Aperformance related@ is to retain any meaning, that rationale should be withdrawn as the justification for the firing of David Iglesias, John McKay, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Carol Lam and perhaps others. Indeed, the apparent reason for these terminations has much more to do with politics than performance.

In his written testimony for this hearing and his newspaper columns, the Attorney General makes the conclusory statement that “nothing improper” occurred.

The truth is that these firings have yet to be explained and there is mounting evidence of improper considerations and actions resulting in these dismissals.

The dismissed U.S. Attorneys have testified under oath that they believe political influence resulted in their being replaced. If they are right, the mixing of partisan political goals into federal law enforcement is highly improper. The Attorney General’s own former Chief of Staff testified under oath that Karl Rove complained to Attorney General Gonzales about David Iglesias not being aggressive enough against so-called voter fraud, which explains his being added to the list.

With respect to Mr. Iglesias, the former U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, the evidence shows that he was held in high regard, considered for promotion to the highest levels of the Department and chosen by the Department to train other U.S. attorneys in the investigation and prosecution of voter fraud.

Then as the election approached in 2006, Administration officials received calls from New Mexico Republicans complaining that Mr. Iglesias would not rush an investigation and indictments before the November election.

True accountability means being forthcoming, and true accountability requires consequences for bad actions. This hearing is such an opportunity.

Last November, the American people rejected this Administration’s unilateral approach to government and to the President acting without constitutional checks and balances. Rather than heed that call, within days of that election, senior White House and Justice Department staff finalized plans to proceed with the simultaneous mass firings of a large number of top federal prosecutors.

By so doing, they sent the unmistakable message — not only to those forced out but also to those who remained — that traditional, independent law enforcement by U.S. Attorneys would no longer be tolerated by this Administration. Instead, partisan loyalty had become the yardstick by which all would be judged.

I cannot excuse the Attorney General’s actions and his failures from the outset to be forthright with us, with these prosecutors and with the American people.

The White House political operatives who helped spearhead this plan did not have effective and objective law enforcement as their principal goal. They would be happy to reduce United States Attorneys offices to another political arm of the Administration.

If nothing improper was done, people need to stop hiding the facts and need to tell the truth, the whole truth. If the White House did nothing wrong, then show us. Show us the documents and provide us with the sworn testimony of what was done – why, and by whom. If there is nothing to hide, then the White House should quit hiding it.

Quit claiming the e-mails cannot be produced and quit contending that the American people and their duly elected representatives cannot see and know the truth. I trust that after weeks of preparation for this hearing, the Attorney General’s past failures to give a complete and accurate explanation of these firings will not be repeated here today.

There has always been a tacit and carefully balanced intersection between politics and our law enforcement system, but it has been limited to the entrance ramp of the nomination and confirmation process. Instead of an entrance ramp, this Administration seems to have envisioned a political toll road.

Real oversight has returned to Capitol Hill, and the investigation of this affair already has pulled back the curtain to reveal unbridled political meddling, Katrina-style cronyism and unfettered White House unilateralism that has been directed at one of our most precious national assets, our law enforcement and legal system.

Earlier in this process, it seemed that the Administration was concluding that any answer will do, whether it was rooted in the facts, or not. Those days are behind us. Just any answer won’t do anymore. We need the facts, and we will pursue the facts until we get to the truth.

Just as respect for the United States as a leader on human rights has been diminished during the last six years, the current actions have served to undercut confidence in United States Attorneys.

Just as Mr. Gonzales cannot claim immunity for the policies and practices regarding torture that were developed under his watch while White House counsel, he cannot escape accountability for signing off on this plan to undercut effective federal prosecutors and to infect federal law enforcement with narrow political goals.

His actions have served to undermine public confidence in federal law enforcement and the rule of law. By getting to the truth, we can take a step toward restoring that trust.

The Wall Street Journal has put together a terrific ‘Who’s Who’ list of the U.S. Attorneys who were terminated, the key Justice Department officials, and White House officials involved in the ongoing investigation.

Every player has a brief bio and picture.  You can read it here.