Welcome to Gonzales Watch - Blawging the Ex-Attorney General

White House Counsel Fred Fielding rejected subpoenas from Congress seeking documents and testimony from former White House aides to President Bush in the Justice Department’s U.S. Attorney firings scandal .

The full text of Fielding’s letter can be read below.

On June 13th, the Senate and House subpoenaed former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Political Director Sarah Taylor.

The subpoena for ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers sought “[c]omplete and unredacted versions, including paper and electronic versions, of any and all documents in your possession, custody or control related to the Committee’s investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice’s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys.”

Fielding tells Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (Dem. - Vt.) and House Committee on the Judiciary Chairman John Conyears (Dem. - Mich.) that Executive Privilege protects Pres. Bush from having to respond to the subpoenas: “where the President’s authority to appoint and remove U.S. Attorneys is at stake, the institutional interest of the Executive Branch is very strong.”

Using litigator’s language, Fielding stressed that “the President’s assertion of [Executive Privilege] here comports with prior practices in similar contests, and that it has been appropriately documented.” (emphasis added).

The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena this morning (See below) for ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

The subponea directs her, in part, to give the Committee by July 12, 2007 “[c]omplete and unredacted versions, including paper and electronic versions, of any and all documents in your possession, custody or control related to the Committee’s investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice’s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys.”

You can read Harriet Mier’s subpoena here:

Rep. John Conyers, Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary said: “Let me be clear: this subpoena is not a request, it is a demand on behalf of the American people for the White House to make available the documents and individuals we are requesting to help us answer the questions that remain. The breadcrumbs in this investigation have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania. This investigation will not end until the White House complies with the demands of this subpoena in a timely and reasonable manner so that we may get to the bottom of this.”

Here is the prepared testimony of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the House Committee on the Judiciary this morning, maintaining his position that the controversial firing of at least eight U.S. Attorneys (and according to The Washington Post possibly nine) U.S. Attorneys “was not based on improper reasons.”

This is the same stance that the country’s top government lawyer laid out before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.

You decide for yourself.

Good morning Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Committee.

I have provided the Committee with a lengthy written statement detailing some of the Department’s work under my leadership to protect our Nation, our children, and our civil rights. I am proud of our past accomplishments in these and other areas, and I look forward to future achievements.

I am here, however, to answer your questions to the best of my ability and recollection – not to repeat what I have provided in writing.

Before we begin, I want to make three brief points about the resignations of the eight United States Attorneys.

These points are the same ones that I made before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. My feelings and recollections about this matter have not changed since that time.

First, as I have said repeatedly, each of those United States Attorneys are fine lawyers and dedicated public servants. I have publicly apologized to them and to their families for allowing this matter to become an unfortunate and undignified public spectacle, for which I accept full responsibility.

Second, as I have said before, I should have been more precise when discussing this matter. I understand why some of my statements generated confusion, and I have subsequently tried to clarify my words.

That said, I believe what matters most is that I have always sought the truth – in every aspect of my professional and personal life. This matter has been no exception. I never sought to mislead or deceive the Congress or the American people. To the contrary; I have been extremely forthcoming with information. I am here today to continue to do my part to ensure that all facts about this matter are brought to light.

Finally, recognizing my limited involvement in the process – a mistake I freely acknowledge – I have soberly questioned my prior decisions.

I have reviewed the documents available to the Congress – but please keep in mind that, in deference to the integrity of the ongoing investigations, there is some information that I have not seen.

I have also asked the Deputy Attorney General if I should reconsider my decisions.

What I have concluded is that, although the process was not as rigorous or structured as it should have been, and while reasonable people might decide things differently, my decision to ask for the resignations of these U.S. Attorneys was not based on improper reasons and, therefore, the decision should stand.

I think we agree on what would be improper. It would be improper to remove a U.S. Attorney to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain.

I did not do that. I would never do that.

Let me conclude by saying that I have learned important lessons from this experience, which will guide me in my important responsibilities.

In recent weeks I have met or spoken with all of our U.S. Attorneys to hear their concerns. These discussions have been open and frank. Good ideas were generated and are being implemented. I look forward to working with these men and women to pursue the great goals of our Department. I also look forward to continuing to work with the Department’s career professionals – investigators, analysts, prosecutors, lawyers, and administrative staff – who perform nearly all of the Department’s work and deserve the most credit for our accomplishments.

I want to continue working with this Committee as well. We have made great strides in protecting our country from terrorism, defending our neighborhoods against the scourge of gangs and drugs, shielding our children from predators, and preserving the integrity of our public institutions. I do not intend to allow recent events to deter us from our mission.

Thank you.

The House Committee on the Judiciary authorized a grant of immunity today for Monica Goodling (inset), in exchange for testimony from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former Senior Counsel and DOJ liasion to the White House.

A two-thirds vote by Committee members was required in order for immunity to be granted. 32 Committee members voted in favor of granting Goodling immunity, six voted against and two were not present.

The former senior Justice Department official was granted what is called “limited use immunity,” for testifying before a Congressional proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 6005.

Legally speaking, the immunity isn’t automatic. The House General Counsel will need to go before a federal judge in the U.S. District Court to get an order that formally gives Goodling immunity.

As Attorney General, Gonzales could try to delay immunity for Goodling. Federal law allows the attorney general ask the court to “defer the issuance of any order” for “not longer than twenty days from the date of the request for such order.” That is done to give the DOJ an opporunity to advise Committee whether or not giving Goodling immunity would interfere with any ongoing or expected criminal investigation that she may have been involved with at the Department.

Gonzales continues to maintain that he’s done “nothing improper” in firing the career prosecutors, despite the bipartisan bashing he received at last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

President Bush continues to say that Gonzales has his full support, telling reporters after the hearing that he’s “an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence.”

It appears that the President must have seen a different recording of last week’s Judiciary Committee hearing than the rest of the country. Bush said that when Gonzales testified, he “answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job.” Did he hear the 64 or 70+ times that Gonzales said he could not recall specifics of his participation in, and knowledge of, the process of firing U.S. Attorneys? Apparently not.

Why Goodling’s Testimony Could Be Imporant
Goodling was present at the Nov. 27, 2007 meeting in the Attorney General’s conference room where Gonzales and his most senior aides met to discuss the planned firings of U.S. Attorneys.

The House and Senate Judiciary Committee repeatedly sought Goodling’s sworn testimony in its investigation of the U.S. Attorney firings controversy.

This is a huge victory for Goodling’s lawyerJohn Dowd, a noted D.C. white collar criminal defense attorney. He’s repeatedly invoked his client’s Fifth Amendment right not to testify.

Earlier, he slammed Senate and House Judiciary Committee member tactics, saying that they smacked of McCarthyism by assuming that his client was hiding something, when under the Constitution, she is presumed innocent of any wrongdoing.