Docs: Gonzales OK'd Firings 4 Months Ago

Documents Contradict Earlier Claims That He Was Not Closely Involved In Attorneys' Dismissals

(AP)  Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.

The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week amid a political firestorm surrounding the firings.

The documents indicated that the hour-long morning discussion, held in the attorney general's conference room, was the only time Gonzales met with top aides who decided which prosecutors to fire and how to do it.

Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said it was not immediately clear whether Gonzales gave his final approval to begin the firings at that meeting. Scolinos also said Gonzales was not involved in the process of selecting which prosecutors would be asked to resign.

On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters he was aware that some of the dismissals were being discussed but was not involved in them.

"I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers — where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew," Gonzales said last week. "But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."

Later, he added: "I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions that I'm not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the inquiry into the firings, said: "If the facts bear out that Attorney General Gonzales knew much more about the plan than he has previously admitted, then he can no longer serve as attorney general."

The documents were released Friday night, a few hours after Sampson agreed to testify at a Senate inquiry next week into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Earlier Friday, a staunch White House ally, Sen. John Cornyn, summoned White House counsel Fred Fielding to Capitol Hill and told him he wanted "no surprises."

"I told him, 'Everything you can release, please release. We need to know what the facts are,"' Cornyn said.

Sampson will appear Thursday at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his attorney said. His appearance will mark the first congressional testimony by a Justice Department aide since the release of thousands of documents that show the firings were orchestrated, in part, by the White House.

Sampson "looks forward to answering the committee's questions," wrote his attorney, Brad Berenson, in a two-paragraph letter to Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

"We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States attorneys," Berenson wrote.

E-mails between the White House and the Justice Department, dating back to the weeks immediately after the 2004 presidential election, show Sampson was heavily engaged in deciding how many prosecutors would be replaced, and which ones. The Bush administration maintains the dismissals of the eight political appointees were proper.

Democrats, however, question whether the eight were selected because they were not seen as, in Sampson's words, "loyal Bushies."

"He was right at the center of things," Schumer said earlier of Sampson. "He has said publicly that what others have said is not how it happened. ... He contradicts DOJ."

Schumer said he hoped Sampson would provide more detail about who initiated the firings and whether they were politically motivated.

[toldyouso21]

Talk about incompetent! Gonzales must be steaming mad that his lackeys at the DOJ forgot to DELETE that info like they did the 16 days of emails from the White house and DOJ hard drives!

Now look what they did, gave more proof of something stinky in the Bush cesspool.

[tom_gwynn]

Thgdriver, do you bother checking facts before you rant? Of course not, when do facts matter to a conservative?

Ruby Ridge happened in August 1992. Janet Reno was appointed Attorney General in 1993. You can't even blame Clinton for Ruby Ridge, as he also assumed office in 1993. It was George H.W. Bush (Dubya's Father) who was president at that time.

As for Waco, why do you neocons persist in defending a child-raping, pedophile, Jim Jones wannbee who deliberately torched his own compound rather than give up control of his followers? Those people were doomed no matter what Janet Reno did or did not do.

As for Clinton firing all of his attorneys when he assumed office it's been said many times but I'll say it again; it is normal for an incoming president to replace all the attorneys. Every president does it. What is *not* normal is firing only the ones that won't abuse their office for your selfish (and illegal) political gain. When Bush assumed office he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of this country. Instead, he's using it as his personal toilet paper.

[thgdriver]

janem4

Some here will try to tell you bush fired his own appointees. Well, so did Clinton/Reno. During his eight years he let plenty of his own go.

Didn't you hear them and Al Gore too for that matter?, Do as I say not as I do. LOL.

As I have been posting all along, When Janet Reno is brought up on charges for murdering children in Waco and Ruby Ridge, then they can call the kettle black. Who did Gonzales murder? Nobody!!

[toldyouso21]

"Let me be the first, and perhaps only, right winger here. How come there is not one word about reno firing 93 judges, across the board, as soon as bubba took office? I have yet to see where a crime has been committed. ... Now, try and be civil and explain it to me."
janem4


Bush fired ALL US attorneys when he took office in 2000. The people he fired now were his own appointees and the measure of what made them targets for firing was that they were not loyal "bushies" since they dared to investigate Republicans as well as Democrats--"loyal bushie: must be a euphemism for disregarding the law in favor of whatever Bush wants.

This is reprehensible and will probably be the first time evidence exists that the DOJ was subverted and the decks stacked for corruption and political favor. So justice is no longer blind--she is red--through and through from Scotus to the US Attorneys.

What is interesting is that Congress is not demanding the rescinsion of the appointments and invetigation into the conduct and cases of those allowed to stay--it may prove very informative.

[susanhelit]

Firing the US Attorneys who were investigating corruption, and came up with the 'wrong' answer sends a clear message to all those remaining - if you have any interest in truth or justice, you will be fired.

And, since right-wing posters keep missing this fact, I'll start posting it every time. The fired US Attorneys were REPUBLICANs, selected by Bush's administration at the start of his term.

[susanhelit]

Janem4 - It is customary, and done by every president, Republican or Democrat, to change the Attorneys at the start of their term, appoint their own. These fired attorneys were appointed by Bush, after he accepted the resignation of all Clinton's attorneys, at the start of his term.

Beyond that though - they are not to be meddled with, and definitely not fired when they are investigating corruption that the administration might find it inconvenient to have revealled.

One of those fired is the one who found Duke Cunningham - the worst case of corruption, selling our defense contracts to the highest bidder! She was suddenly on the list to be expelled the day after notifying Washington that she had a new corruption case against a particular contractor.

The other Attorneys mostly have similar stories - except for the one that they've admitted was kicked out to make a place for one of Rove's toadys.

[searingtruth]

"Let me be the first, and perhaps only, right winger here. How come there is not one word about reno firing 93 judges, across the board, as soon as bubba took office? I have yet to see where a crime has been committed. ... Now, try and be civil and explain it to me."
janem4


How can I refuse such a polite request?

It is customary, although I don't think ethical, for all US Attorney Generals to offer their resignations when a new President takes power. If the party in power is changing hands then most if not all of these resignations are accepted.

Of course that has nothing to do with this case. In this case Bush and his henchmen found Attorney Generals who were either pursuing corruption cases against Republicans, refused to bring false corruption charges against Democrats, or in general just made them afraid they weren't good and loyal fascists, so they fired them.

This is called obstruction of justice, and in everyone's world except the neo-cons, it's a crime. A serious liberty threatening crime.

Of course neo-cons believe the only crime left is being an American and upholding the Constitution of the United States of America, but they're wrong.
ST

"Republicans are in a unique historical position. They are the first group of people raised on this land, who call themselves Americans, that openly proclaim the virtues of torture, secret prisons, extra judicial abduction, universal surveillance, and dictatorial government."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com

[abbe7]

What the democrats have to do, when the WH will start fighting subpoenas, is pretty simple but they have to have the spine to do it : impeach Gonzales.

[toldyouso21]

Seven Pesos, if we were to use your limited intellectual ability to make pre-judgements we would conclude that nothing good comes from Califonia, just Gang Wars,mudslides,wildfires, earthquakes, Charles Manson,*** Nixon, Ronald Reagan, urban riots,OJ Simpson, Herbert Hoover, Heavan's Gate,etc. That would be as ignorant as your mindless repetitive and devoid of thought drones. You should love Bush, you think just like him.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 10:27 AM : Mar 25, 2007


Why do you respond to this person? Things people say should only bother you if their opinion matters to you. You are giving a lot of personal power to this Pesos person.

The absolutely worse thing to do to racists, sexists, bigots or other intolerant people is to ignore them. Because they are operating on a very primitive cognitive level; they spout their filth to get attention. There is no reasoning with them, because simply by reponding you give them what they need--this only encourages more ugly, outrageous remarks.

If everyone ignored this person, at first they would become more outrageous, then...they would slowly try to have normal discourse just to interact--if they were still ignored, they would stop posting. You might want to stop feeding the fire and starve it instead--and why let his remarks get to you--consider the source. Smart humans do not spend time trying to justify themselves to a barking dog.

[toldyouso21]

It would be very smart and pre-emptive for Congress to subpoena the hard drives of all Justice officials and have IT retrieve or reconstruct asll email communications. This would provide a disincentive for the DOJ to lie, lose emails, selectively provide emails--and it could also serve as a heads up to the white house--that no matter how they obsfucate---THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT.