Will Gonzales Fall For Attorney Firings?

Sources: AG's Ouster Is Inevitable; Fired Attorney Blames Partisan Politics

(CBS/AP)  One of the eight recently fired U.S. attorneys at the center of a growing political scandal tells CBS News that he lost his job because he "did not play ball" with powerful Republicans.

"I believe, and I think all my colleagues believe, the real reason is partisan politics," the former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, David Iglesias told CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric. "I believe I was fired because I did not play ball with two members of the Republican delegation here in New Mexico. I did not give them privileged information that could have been used in the October and November time frame."

The fallout from the firings continues to grow in Washington, and sources tell CBS News that it looks like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will take the fall.

Republicans close to the White House tell CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod that President Bush is in "his usual posture: pugnacious, that no one is going to tell him who to fire." But sources also said Gonzales' firing is just a matter of time.

The White House is bracing for a weekend of criticism and more calls for Gonzales to go. One source tells CBS News he's never seen the administration in such deep denial, and Republicans are growing increasingly restless for the president to take action.

The Justice Department has said the attorneys were fired for performance issues, but CBS News has also obtained performance reviews for some of the fired U.S. attorneys. Nine months before John McKay was fired as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, he was described as an "effective, well-regarded and capable leader," Axelrod reports.

Bud Cummins, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, was called "very competent and highly regarded" in a January 2006 review obtained by CBS News.

Carol Lam, who was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, was described as an "effective manager and respected leader" in February 2005.

"I got great office reviews," Iglesias told Couric. "I was not on any kind of resignation list until Nov. 15, 2006, and that was two weeks after I received two very inappropriate calls from two Republican members of Congress."

---

Watch Couric's Interview With David Iglesias

---

Meanwhile, the White House dropped its contention Friday that former counsel Harriet Miers first raised the idea of firing U.S. attorneys, blaming "hazy memories" as e-mails shed new light on Karl Rove's role.

Presidential press secretary Tony Snow previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea, but he said Friday, "I don't want to try to vouch for origination." He said, "At this juncture, people have hazy memories."

The White House also said it needed more time before deciding whether Miers, political strategist Rove and other presidential advisers would testify before Congress.

The Justice Department said late Friday that all of the documents requested by Congress will be delivered to Capitol Hill.

"Given the importance of the issues under consideration and the presidential principles involved, we need more time to resolve them," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. She also said White House Counsel Fred Fielding suggested to the House Judiciary Committee that he get back to members on Tuesday.

Fielding called a staff member of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday afternoon, saying he needed to clear the White House's position with President Bush, according to an official who works for the panel. That official spoke only on condition of anonymity because the conversation had been private.

After receiving word of the delay, committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said his panel would vote next week on subpoenas for Rove, Miers and other officials.

Snow's comments came hours after the Justice Department released e-mails Thursday night pulling the White House deeper into an intensifying investigation into whether eight firings were a purge of prosecutors deemed unenthusiastic about presidential goals.

---

Kyle Sampson E-mails, 2005

---

Snow said it was not immediately clear who first floated the more dramatic idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys shortly after President Bush was re-elected to a second term.

"This is as far as we can go: We know that Karl recollects Harriet having raised it and his recollection is that he dismissed it as not a good idea," Snow told reporters. "That's what we know. We don't know motivations. ... I don't think it's safe to go any further than that."

Asked if President Bush himself might have suggested the firings, Snow said, "Anything's possible ... but I don't think so." He said Mr. Bush "certainly has no recollection of any such thing. I can't speak for the attorney general."

"I want you to be clear here: Don't be dropping it at the president's door," Snow said.

Subpoenas demanding testimony from White House officials could come next week.

Conyers said the House Judiciary Committee "must take steps to ensure that we are not being stonewalled or slow-walked on this matter." He said, "I will schedule a vote to issue subpoenas for the documents and officials we need to talk to."

"We hope that this delay is not a signal they will not cooperate," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate's probe into the matter. "The story keeps changing, which neither does them or the public any good."

More Republicans called for Gonzales' ouster late in the week.

Congressman Dana Rohrbacher became the latest Republican to say Gonzales should go, reported Axelrod.

"Even for Republicans, this is a warning sign … saying there needs to be a change," said Rohrbacher. "Maybe the president should have an attorney general who is less a personal friend and more professional in his approach."

Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire has called for Bush to replace Gonzales, and a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, speaking on condition of anonymity, has said he plans to do the same next week.

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina said the controversies reflected poorly on administration officials generally.

"They don't know anything about running government. They're just political hacks," Clyburn said at a news conference in Columbia, S.C. "Gonzales is just a political hack."

Other GOP lawmakers have joined Democrats in harsh indictments of Gonzales' effectiveness but have stopped short of saying he should be fired.

"I do not think the attorney general has served the president well, but it is up to the president to decide on (Attorney) General Gonzales' continued tenure," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

The latest e-mails between White House and Justice Department officials show that Rove inquired in early January 2005 about firing U.S. attorneys. They also indicate Gonzales was considering dismissing up to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys in the weeks before he took over the Justice Department.

In one e-mail, Gonzales' top aide, Kyle Sampson, said an across-the-board housecleaning "would certainly send ripples through the U.S. attorney community if we told folks they got one term only." The e-mail concluded that "if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."

Sampson resigned this week amid the uproar.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote for next Thursday on authorizing subpoenas for Rove, Miers and her deputy, William K. Kelley. The panel already has approved the use of subpoenas, if necessary, for Justice Department officials and J. Scott Jennings, a White House aide who works in Rove's office.

E-mails between the White House and the Justice Department suggest that Jennings was involved in setting up a meeting on a possible replacement for soon-to-be-fired New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias and in responding to "a senator problem" with the proposed replacement of Bud Cummins, then U.S. attorney for Arkansas.

Among the Justice Department officials named in the subpoenas is Associate Deputy Attorney General William E. Moschella. Lawmakers want him to testify about whether the White House consented to changing the Patriot Act last year to let the attorney general appoint new U.S. attorneys without confirmation.

In an interview with The Associated Press this week, Moschella said the change was not aimed at bypassing the Senate but ending meddling by judges in filling vacant prosecutors' jobs. Under the former law, federal judges could appoint interim U.S. attorneys in jobs that were vacant for more than 120 days.

"There's a conspiracy theory about this and it's nothing other than that," Moschella said.

[us_infidel]

I like that idea....fire the rest of them! Problem is, no one in this administration has the stones to stand up and tell these dems where to shove it.

[jayjaypeter1]

Iglesias should run for Dominici's seat in New Mexico. But first he should re-register as democrat. Dominici's must be squirming in his seat right now.

[randalds]

The U.S. attorney are part of the executive branch of government and are POLITICAL (hint) appointees - serving at the pleasure of the chief executive (The President).

This whole thing is ridiculous.
I say fire the remaining U.S. attorney just to drive the point home.

Posted by kaysaa1 at 07:18 AM : Mar 18, 2007

The fact that he can hire or fire them does not mean that they work for him. They swear an oath that they work for US, not the president. They are OUR attorneys. The people's attorneys. They are not the president's private law firm. They answer to him in the sense that he recommends their appointment (pending confirmation from the Senate) and that he can fire them for CAUSE! This does not mean that he can direct them in who to investigate or prosecute. We do not need to change the Constitution since this is how it is already set up. And while were at it that idiot in the Oval Office is supposed to work for us too. He is a government employee. A public servant. He's not a king or dictator or boss over us. WE are his boss, not the other way around.

Or perhaps you never took basic civics or read the Constitution?

[cincigal74]

Mr.Bush;Are you beginning to see the plan?????Gotcha!!!

[grgwill2004]

Well, as everyone knows...this administration has made mistake after mistake after mistake. How anyone voted them back in the second time is WAY beyond my concept of rationality.
Take a look around the administration, and besides the Vice-President(Old corporate buddy of many) and Karl Rove (evil genius), most of the rest of the clan has had to move on for HUGE MISTAKES...and those type of people get their marching orders from SOMEONE !!!
The fall guys have been VERY MANY during the past 6.25 years. UNREAL
WAKE UP AMERICA !!!

[homespunlady]

kaysaa1 says to fire them all to drive home the point Bush has "the power".

I agree that Firing All the AGs SHOULD be done but for a different reason. This flap is Destroying what little trust the American People have in the current government. In order to PROVE that the firings AREN'T political the President (like the old joke says)can PROVE he's "not prejudiced" and "hate them all equally" or in this case "Fire them all equally".

[postamerican]

What is the definition of obstruction of justice?

August 8, 2005 - Bush removal of US attorney halted probe of Jack Abramoff
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/?p1=email_to_a_friend
A US grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after.

[david1737]

sob1313

The bigger the mistake the harder it is to admit that you're wrong. Stop making excuses. Be a man!
Face this one fact. Nothing the Clinton Admin. did gives Bush Admin. or any other Administration a "blank check" to engage in Unbridled corruption.
Enough is Enough.

[clemenhagen1]

Besides obvious obstruction of justice, the other key issue comes with the obscure PATRIOT ACT provision that allows interim appointment without Senate confirmation. This reveals malice of forethought: this scheme was calculated and premeditated. They slide a provision into the PATRIOT ACT, which itself got ramrodded through Congress without oversight due to the hysteria of the Post 9-11 era. They now remove appointees, replace them with cronies, and subjugate the constitution by bypassing the constitutionally required "advice and consent" rule. Lovely to see our constitution so deceitfully underminded, isn't fellow patriots!?

[clemenhagen1]

First State Posts: "US Attorneys are political appointees, but their oath requires them to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The 8 who were fired dared to refuse to violate that oath."

First State: Well put. The defenders of the administration cannot seem to distinguish between truth and propaganda driven misinformation.

While prosecutors serve at the discretion of the president, if the president or his representatives pressure prosecutors or remove them to stop an investigation it amounts to obstruction of justice. In the case of Iglesias, two Republican senators (and e-mail show Karl Rove at the center) placed calls to pressure him to press charges in a case that lacked indictable evidence. That would be, in the words of one neocon poster: "undermining the justice system." In the case of Lam she indicted and convicted a blatantly corrupt Duke Cunningham. She was fired before she could pursue the case to the next obvious crook, Jerry Lewis (Cunningham's partner in defense contracting fraud). Firing the attorney to impede an investigation into an obvious case of fraud? Repeat after me neocons, in your own words: "undermining the justice system."

[sjc_1]

As I see it, this has to do with Rove's involvement. You do not have political advisers involved in this kind of matter. It sounded like Rove did not like some attorneys not prosecuting Democratic political candidates in some states. This takes it out of the realm of merit of the case and puts it on a political hit list.

[frankly6]

firststate

Well said.

[macusweil]

Nothing new here-- the GOP has a standing policy of gutting any federal government agency that tries to enforce the law, this way they can rape the American tax payer at will.

[rhs648]

It's all politics folks. It doesn't matter if it is 1977, 1987, or 2007. Some things never change. Democrats today and Republicans tomorrow. One thing both parties can count on is that people have short memories and even shorter attention spans.

[firststate]

"I say fire the remaining U.S. attorney just to drive the point home.
Posted by kaysaa1"

I couldn't agree more with the idea of firing the rest of the US Attorneys. The ones remaining are the prosecutors who passed rove's "loyal bushies" test. They're the ones who wouldn't have prosecuted a crook like Cunningham or refused to seek the indictment of democrats on trumped-up charges BEFORE the election.

US Attorneys are political appointees, but their oath requires them to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The 8 who were fired dared to refuse to violate that oath. To date, the number of bush appointees who have chosen to follow their Constitutional oath, rather than blind loyalty to bush equals 8.

Apparently george and tricky dickey II think that justice should be not only blind, but also bound and gagged. They believe that the conservative goal of smaller government can be met by eliminating the other two branches of government.

Do they agree that a future democratic president should have all extra powers bush has commandeered or could they be planning to save tax dollars by eliminating elections and the possibility of a future democratic presidency?

[aurelio231]

Beyond Those Walls

At the White House, we hear the First Lady:

"Georgie, what the heck is happening? If it isn't Cheney, it is the surge, the medical care of injured soldiers, the firing of US attorneys and now the mounting uproar on Alberto Gonzalez forced exit from you administration. Are you hip, man?"

The First Lady loves to use expressions that she hears her twin daughters use. It makes her feel "cool" and up to date.

"It is the radical left conspiracy against my mandate. It was the same climate during the Spanish war, the Reagan administration and my old man's regime. Alberto let his crew make some mistakes and now he is being accused of plotting against the Justice system in this country, as if it was another banana republic!"

"But why Alberto? He is one of your most loyal collaborators!"

"Do not worry your pretty head First Lady. This too shall pass, and Alberto was not so indispensable, after all!"

"That shows how removed you are from reality. If you let them fire Alberto, who is going to fix the twin's parking tickets? Who is going to get those great Mexican cooks for the ranch? Who is going to prepare the guacamole for the weekly picnics on the West Wing terrace? Who is going to keep Tony from lying? Who will replace him?"

"You are probably right. How about Mickey Brown, he would probably do a heckuva job!"

[sob1313]

johnkick, I suppose you're right, I guess the Clintons are the epitomy of honesty eh? I mean, Hillary never lied or had a hazy memory during whitewater did she?..... At least I realize they're ALL power-hungry. The point is, I want LESS government in my life, not more. And as for Bush not doing anything for the poor. Please, this is America, I know people who came here and couldn't speak the language, and within 5 years own a business and a house, and are doing quite well. I know you liberals hate anyones individual success, but this is America, the EASIEST place in the world to make it. But noone's gonna hand it to you, you have to WORK for it. That's why I get so sick of you liberals promising more of my hard earned money to some derelicts just to buy a vote. Why the hell else would you want all those ILLEGAL ALIENS made citizens?........POWER! that's why, dems don't give rats *** about the ILLEGALS other than getting their vote.

[kaysaa1]

What is wrong with a new custom that allows a president to terminate lawyers midway during his term?

Posted by rhs648 at 11:04 PM : Mar 17, 2007

Because once in their office as a US Attorney they swear an oath to serve the people of the United States. At that point they are no longer the presidents lawyers (no matter which party appointed them) they are OUR lawyers and they have a moral, legal and ethical obligation to serve in OUR best interests, not the president's.

NEWS FLASH

If you want this to occur then change the consituition and create a fourth branch of government.

The U.S. attorney are part of the executive branch of government and are POLITICAL (hint) appointees - serving at the pleasure of the chief executive (The President).

This whole thing is ridiculous.
I say fire the remaining U.S. attorney just to drive the point home.

[coffeehead-2009]

Nah -

No one has been accountable for 7 years, why would they start now?

How's the shifting of tax dollars going in that move to Dubai? HEILburton!

[randalds]

What is wrong with a new custom that allows a president to terminate lawyers midway during his term?

Posted by rhs648 at 11:04 PM : Mar 17, 2007

Because once in their office as a US Attorney they swear an oath to serve the people of the United States. At that point they are no longer the presidents lawyers (no matter which party appointed them) they are OUR lawyers and they have a moral, legal and ethical obligation to serve in OUR best interests, not the president's. He gets to appoint them, but that doesn't make him their boss! WE are their bosses! He can NOT ethically (OK I understand Bush has no grasp on the word "ethics") fire them for purely political reasons, or because they refuse to be his hit squad and only go after people of the opposite party! They are NOT his private legal goon squad. THAT'S where Bush is wrong.