On December 7, 2006, the Department of Justice George W. Bush ordered an unprecedented medium-term dismissal of seven US lawyers. The congressional investigation focuses on whether the Justice Department and the White House use the position of US lawyers for political gain. The charge is that some lawyers are targeted for dismissal to obstruct the investigation of Republican politicians or that some are targeted because of their failure to initiate an inquiry that will undermine Democratic politicians or hamper Democrat-leaning voters. The US attorney was replaced with a temporary person, under the terms of the 2005 US Patrindo Act.
A subsequent report by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice in October 2008 found that the process used to dismiss the first seven lawyers and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed", and "cast doubt on the integrity of the Department decision of prosecution ". In July 2010, the Justice Department prosecutor closed a two-year investigation without filing charges after ruling that the shootings were not politically correct, but not a criminal, saying "The evidence does not show that any crime that could be prosecuted was related to the lifting of David Iglesias. The investigation team also determined that evidence does not guarantee the extension of the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias. "
Video Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
Problems briefly
Traditionally, all US lawyers are required to resign at the start of a new government. The new President may elect to retain or remove the US Attorney. They have traditionally been changed collectively only at the beginning of the new White House administration. US lawyers hold political posts, in which the President nominates candidates for office and the Senate affirms, and consequently, they serve the President with pleasure. When a new President comes from a different political party, usually almost all resignations are finally accepted and those positions are then filled by newly appointed persons, usually from the new Presidential party. Although a political appointee, it is important for the effectiveness of the US Attorney that they are politically impartial in deciding which cases will be prosecuted and in prosecuting those cases before judges and juries with diverse views.
Several US Senators are concerned about the provisions in the 2006 reauthorization of the US PATRIOT Act that removes the 120-day time limit on the temporary appointment of US Attorney made by the US Attorney General to fill vacancies. The revised PATRIOT Act allows the Attorney General to appoint US temporary prosecutors indefinitely, and avoid voting by the Senate. Changes in law undermined the Senate confirmation authority and gave the Attorney General a greater appointing power than the President, since the appointment of a designated US President must be confirmed by the Senate and those of the Attorney General did not require confirmation.
The Senate is worried that in rejecting seven US lawyers who have been confirmed, the government plans to fill the void with its own choice, passing Senate confirmations and traditional consultations with Senators in the selection process. Congress overturned this provision on 14 June 2007, and President Bush immediately signed the bill into law.
Administrative reasons are not clear
The reasons for the dismissal of each individual US Attorney are not clear. Two suggested motivations are that the government wants to make room for US lawyers who will be more sympathetic to the government's political agenda, and the government wants to advance a promising conservative career. Critics say that lawyers are dismissed for failing to prosecute Democratic politicians, for failing to prosecute electoral fraud claims that would impede Democratic registration voters, as a levy to prosecute Republican politicians, or for failing to pursue prosecution of adult obscenity. The government and its supporters say that lawyers are dismissed for work performance reasons "related to policy, priorities and management", and that US lawyers serve for the President's pleasure. However, at least six lawyers have recently received a positive evaluation of their performance from the Department of Justice. In September 2008, the Justice Department inspector general's inquiry concluded that the dismissal was politically motivated and inappropriate.
Administration testimony disputed by document
Members of Congress investigating dismissal found that sworn testimony from Justice Department officials appeared to be contrary to memorandums and e-mails of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and that Congress might be deliberately misled. The White House's role in dismissal remains unclear even though there are hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and the Justice Department's senior staff at the congressional committee hearings. The Bush administration issued a changed and contradictory statement about the timeline of dismissal planning, the people who ordered dismissal, and the reasons for dismissal. The origin and evolution of the list of dismissed lawyers remains unclear. In response to the Inspector General's report in September 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed United States Temporary Chief for the Connecticut District, Nora Dannehy as the special prosecutor to determine whether government officials had sworn falsely in testimony to Congress. His investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute a person with perjury.
Recruitment politicization at Justice Department
Attorney General Gonzales, in a secret memorandum dated March 1, 2006, delegated authority to DOJ's senior staff Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson to recruit and dismiss political appointees and civil service positions.
On May 2, 2007, the Department of Justice announced two separate investigations on the offensive committed by Goodling: one by the Inspector General's department, and the second by the Office of Professional Responsibility. In testimony before the Justice Committee, on May 23, 2007 Goodling declared that he had "crossed the line" and violated the civil service laws governing recruitment for civil servant positions, and had considered political factors inappropriately in assessing applicants.
According to a Justice Department report in January 2009, investigators found that Bradley Schlozman, as the temporary head of the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, "prefers applicants with political affiliation or conservative ideology and disrespects applicants with civil rights or human rights experience that he deems too liberal ". The position under consideration is not politics, but a career, in which the candidate's political and ideological views are not considered, in accordance with federal law and guidelines.
In a letter of 30 May 2007, to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the US Department of Justice Inspector General and Counsel for the Office of Professional Responsibility confirmed that they are expanding their investigations beyond the "United States Lawyers abolition" to include "DOJ hiring and personnel decisions" by Monica Goodling and other Justice Department employees.
Unapproved lawyer and election
The controversy surrounding the rejection of US lawyers is often linked to elections or fraud-electoral issues. The allegations are that some US lawyers are dismissed for failing to instigate an inquiry that undermines Democratic politicians, or for failing to more aggressively pursue cases of voter fraud. The allegations were made by several US lawyers who dismissed themselves to state the reason they may have been dismissed. The background to these allegations is the recent tendency for elections in parts of the United States to be very close; election results may be influenced by a published inquiry from a politician. It is the Ministry of Justice's explicit policy to avoid bringing voter-related cases during the election for this reason. In September 2008, Inspector General of the Justice Department concluded that some dismissals were motivated by the refusal of several US lawyers to prosecute cases of voter fraud during the 2006 election cycle.
Maps Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
Fallout
In April 2007, there was some speculation that the dismissal of US lawyers could affect cases of public corruption and voter fraud. According to the National Journal of Laws,
Only the emergence of political influence in cases related to the dismissal, combined with the unusual and recent reversal of federal public corruption convictions in Wisconsin [cf, Georgia Thompson], some say, will spur aggressive defense lawyers to question political motivation of prosecutors in certain cases; making judges and judges more skeptical of the evidence in front of them; and perhaps even cold line prosecutors in the pursuit of several charges.
In mid-September 2007, nine of the Justice Department's senior staff related to the controversy had resigned. The most prominent resignations include:
-
- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
- Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty; Temporary Acting Attorney General William W. Mercer resigned from the office of acting before the Senate hearing for the same position, and returned to his post as US Attorney for Montana (he held a double position);
- Chief of staff for Attorney General Kyle Sampson
- Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney General Michael Elston;
- Executive Office Director for US Attorney (EOUSA) Michael A. Battle;
- The then appointed director for EOUSA, Bradley Schlozman, is also a former Assistant Attorney General who acts for the Civil Rights Division;
- Department of Justice White House Liaison Monica Goodling
In June 2008, the jury was required to consider criminal charges against officials involved in dismissal. The grand jury presented evidence of ongoing investigations in the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Justice and in the DOJ's Professional Responsibility Office.
Report of the Inspector General and the Special Prosecutor
On September 29, 2008, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (IG) released a report on the problems that found most of the dismissal politically motivated and inappropriate. The next day Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed special prosecutor Nora Dannehy to decide whether criminal charges should be filed against Gonzales and other officials involved in dismissal. The IG report contained "substantial evidence" that party politics encouraged a number of dismissals, and IG Glenn Fine said in a statement that Gonzales had "relinquished his responsibility to maintain the integrity and independence of the department." The report itself ceases to resolve questions about the higher involvement of the White House on this issue, because what it says is a refusal to cooperate with a number of key players, including Karl Rove, Senators Pete Domenici and Harriet Miers and because the White House refused to submit documents associated with dismissal.
On July 21, 2010, Dannehy concluded that "there is insufficient evidence to establish that people deliberately make material false statements to the [Inspector General's Office] or Congress or to corruptly endeavor to obstruct justice" and that no criminal prosecution which will be filed against Sampson. or Gonzales.
US Lawyer Replacement
Initial planning
On January 6, 2005, Colin Newman, an assistant in the White House advice office, wrote to David Leitch, "Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quotes) 'how we plan to continue on US Attorneys, will we to allow all to stay, ask for the resignation of all and only accept some of them or selectively replace them, etc. "The email was then forwarded to Kyle Sampson, chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
In retaliation, Kyle Sampson, the Justice Department's advisor to Attorney General John Ashcroft, wrote that it would "strange ask them to leave before completing at least 4 years", that they "want to replace 15-20 percent of current US Attorneys" and that the rest "doing a great job, is a loyal Bushies, etc."
In March 2005, Sampson...
comes with a checklist. He assesses each US Attorney with criteria that seem to appreciate political allegiance and job performance. He recommends maintaining "powerful US lawyers who... show loyalty to the President and the Attorney General." He suggests 'removing a weak US lawyer... who has... neglected the Administration initiative'.
Sampson wrote in January 2006 to Miers that he recommended the Justice Department and the Advisory Office for the President to work together to seek the replacement of a number of US lawyers, and that by limiting the number of "targeted and deleted targeted" lawyers it would "mitigate [e] surprise the system which will result from cross-board shooting ".
On February 12, 2006, Monica Goodling sent a spreadsheet of each US Lawyers' political activity and political membership in a conservative political group, in an email to a senior Administration official, with the comment "This is the map AG requested".
Sampson is urged to use changes to the law governing the appointment of US Attorney to pass Congressional confirmation, writing in a memo of September 17, 2006 to Harriet Miers:
I only support implementing a plan to encourage some USA if we are really ready and willing to spend the time it takes to select candidates and get them appointed... This will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push the US out and then have no substitute ready to roll soon... I strongly recommend that as an administrative matter, we use new legal provisions authorizing AG to make a US appointment... [By avoiding Senate confirmation] we can give much less respect to the senator of the country of origin and thus get 1.) the person we selected was appointed and 2.) did it much faster and more efficiently with less political costs to the White House.
Implementation: US Attorney Announcement List
In October 2006, George W. Bush told Alberto Gonzales that he had received a complaint that some US lawyers did not pursue the investigation of certain frauds. The complaints come from Republican officials, who are demanding fraudulent investigations into a number of Democratic campaigns.
According to Newsweek , "Kyle Sampson, chief of staff of Gonzales, developed a list of eight prosecutors who were dismissed last October - with input from the White House".
On November 27, 2006, Gonzales met with senior advisor to discuss the plan. The Justice Department has not received White House approval for dismissal until early December. By the end of December 2, Sampson had written to Michael Elston that the Justice Department "awaits the green light from the White House" in connection with the shootings. White House deputy adviser William K. Kelley replied on December 4, 2006, saying, "We are leaving for the Atty US plan... [White House affairs of legislative affairs], politics, communications have ceased and acknowledged that we must commit to follow-up once the pressure comes. "
On December 7, 2006, Justice Department officials Michael A. Battle informed seven US lawyers that they were dismissed.
Although seven lawyers were dismissed on 7 December 2006, subsequent disclosures indicated that three or more additional lawyers were dismissed under similar circumstances between 2005 and 2006. US Attorney Bud Cummins in Arkansas was notified in June 2006 that he would be replaced, and he resigned, effectively December 20, 2006, days after the public announcement of the appointment of his successor Timothy Griffin.
David Iglesias (R) believes he has been released from his post on the order of two Republican NM Congressmen when he refused to adjudicate the Senate senatorial state before the November 2006 elections.
Kevin Ryan (R) Despite being described as "loyal to the Bush administration," he is allegedly dismissed for possible controversy that could lead to a negative job performance evaluation if they are released.
John McKay (R) was given a positive job evaluation 7 months before he was fired. After a close WA contest resulted in a Democratic victory, the local Republican criticized McKay for not investigating allegations of voter fraud.
Paul K. Charlton (R) was given a positive job performance evaluation before he was dismissed. He may be fired because he started a corruption investigation about Rick Renzi (R-AZ).
Carol Lam (R) oversees the investigation and beliefs of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) for corruption in military contracts. Congressman Darrell Issa complained (falsely) that Lam did not demand an illegal border crossing quite aggressively.
Daniel Bogden (R) US Attorney for Nevada is investigating NV Governor Jim Gibbons (R) for a bribe, when Bogden was suddenly fired by George W. Bush (R) without explanation after 17 years because of a vague feeling that "stronger leaders " needed. His allegiance to President Bush was questioned by Kyle Sampson (R) Chief of Staff and Counsel for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (R).
Margaret Chiara (R) Given a positive job evaluation in 2005, and says it has been removed to "make way" for another individual.
Todd Graves (R) has been urged to file a civil lawsuit against Missouri Foreign Minister Robin Carnahan, (D) for allegedly failing to take action against vote reduction.
Bud Cummins (R) is allegedly asked to leave so Timothy Griffin, an assistant Karl Rove, can have his job.
Thomas M. DiBiagio (R) believes he was asked to step down because of a corruption investigation into the administration of Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R).
Reaction and congressional investigation
Initial reaction
The initial reaction came from senators from affected countries. In a letter to Gonzales on January 9, 2007, Senator Feinstein (D, California) and Leahy (D, Vermont, Chairman of the Committee) of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed concern that the confirmation process for US lawyers will be bypassed, and on January 11 they, along with Senator Pryor (D, Arkansas), introduced the law "to prevent circumvention of the constitutional constitution of the Senate to confirm US Attorneys", called Conserving the Independence Act of the United States Independence of 2007, S. 214 and HR 580. The initial concern is about the USA PATRIOT Act and the confirmation process, rather than the politicization of US Attorneys.
Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 18. He assured the committee that he did not intend to go through the confirmation process and refuse politically motivated dismissal.
The concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein and Pryor were followed up by a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee called by Senator Schumer (D, New York) in February. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6. He said that the seven men were fired because of job performance issues and not political considerations; These statements caused some dismissed, previously silent lawyers to ask questions about their dismissal, partly because their performance appraisal before their dismissal was very profitable.
In a subsequent closed testimony on April 27, 2007 to the committee, McNulty said that a few days after the February hearing, he learned that White House officials had not revealed to him the White House influence and discussions about making the list. McNulty in February called Senator Schumer over the phone to apologize for the characterization of an inaccurate dismissal. McNulty testified that Bud Cummins, US Attorney General for Arkansas, had been dismissed to install former Karl Rove's assistant and director of the National Republic research opposition Timothy Griffin. Cummins, apparently, "was ousted after Harriet E. Miers, a former White House advisor, intervened on Griffin's behalf".
McNulty's testimony that lawyers were dismissed for "performance-related issues" led lawyers to move forward in protest. There is some evidence that the administration is worried about lawyers' going public with complaints before now.
Salon.com reported: "[A] at least three of the eight lawyers dismissed were told by their superiors that they were forced to resign to provide employment to other representatives appointed by Bush, according to a former senior judge Department officials know about their case. "
Investigation and further resignation
War resignation
On March 5, 2007 effective March 16, Michael A. Battle resigned from his post as Executive Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorney (EOUSA). On March 6, 2007, Gonzales responded to the controversy in an opinion on USA Today where he wrote:
To be clear, [shootings] are for reasons related to policy, priority and management - what has been widely referred to as "performance-related" reasons - that seven US lawyers were asked to resign last December... We have never requested US lawyers to resign in an attempt to take revenge against him or unduly interfere with public corruption cases (or any other type of case, for that matter). Like me, US lawyers are politically appointed people, and we all serve for the president's pleasure. If US lawyers do not execute their responsibilities in a way that fosters management and policy objectives from department leaders, they should be replaced... While I am grateful for the public services of these seven US lawyers, they have lost me. trust. I hope that this episode will ultimately be acknowledged for what it is: overly overrated personnel issues.
Sampson Sampling
On March 12, 2007, Sampson resigned from the Department of Justice.
On March 13, Gonzales stated at a press conference that he accepted responsibility for the mistakes made in his dismissal and rejected his resignation appeal made by members of the Democratic Congress. He also stood up with his decision to dismiss the lawyers, saying "I support that decision and I think it is the right decision". Gonzales acknowledged that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials, and said that "I never saw the document We never discussed where things stand".
Gonzales lost more support when some records later challenged some of these statements. Although the Justice Department released 3,000 pages of internal communications related to this issue, there is no document that discusses matters relating to the performance review process for these attorneys before they are dismissed. Records released on March 23 show that on November 27th "he attended a one-hour meeting where, said the maid, he approved a detailed plan for carrying out the cleanup".
Executive Privilege Claim
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy stated that Congress has the authority to summon the Justice Department and White House officials including political chief advisor to president Karl Rove and former White House advocate Harriet Miers. On March 20, President Bush declared at a press conference that his aide would not testify under oath on this issue if summoned by Congress. Bush explained his position saying,
The President relies on his staff to give him honest advice. The Constitutional drafter understands this important role when developing a separate branch of government. And if the staff of a President operates in constant fear of being drawn to various committees to discuss internal negotiations, the President will not accept any advice, and the American people will be harassed.... I will oppose every attempt to file a summons. White House officials.... My choice is to make sure I keep the President's ability to make good decisions.
Regardless of the position of the President against his witnesses who testified, on 21 March, the Justice Committee of the House of Representatives approved a summons from five Justice Department officials, and on March 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee also authorized the subpoenas.
Goodling Withdrawal
Sampson's successor as the interim head of the Attorney General is the US Attorney General for Eastern District of Virginia, Chuck Rosenberg. Rosenberg initiated a DOJ investigation into considerable political considerations in Monica Goodling's recruitment practices for civil service staff. The position of civil office is not a political promise and should be done on a non-partisan basis. In one instance, Jeffrey A. Taylor, a former US temporary attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to hire a new career prosecutor, Seth Adam Meinero, in the fall of 2006. Goodling considers Meinero too "liberal" and refuses to agree. Meinero, a graduate of Howard law school who has handled civil rights cases in the Environmental Protection Agency, serves as a special assistant attorney in Taylor's office. Taylor wandered around Goodling, and demanded Sampson's approval to rent. In another example, Goodling got rid of a lawyer from his job at the Justice Department because he was rumored to be a lesbian, and, furthermore, blocked the lawyer from getting another Department of Justice job he got. Regulations on employment in the Department of Justice prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
On March 26, 2007, Goodling, who had helped coordinate the lawyers' dismissal with the White House, took time off from his job as adviser to the attorney general and as liaison of the Department of Justice to the White House. Goodling prepared to testify before Congress, but on March 26, 2007, he canceled his presence at the congressional hearing, citing his Fifth Amendment against the allegations. On April 6, 2007, Goodling resigned from the Department of Justice.
On April 25, 2007, the House of Justice Committee passed a resolution, with 32-6 votes, authorizing lawyers for the House to file a court order granting Goodling's immunity in exchange for his testimony and authorizing the summons for him. On May 11, 2007, US District Court Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order granting Goodling's immunity in exchange for his honest testimony in a US Attorney investigation, stating that "Goodling should not refuse to give testimony, refused to provide any other information, when forced to do so "before the Committee.
Gonzales resignation
A number of members of both houses of Congress openly said Gonzales should resign, or be sacked by Bush. On March 14, 2007, Senator John E. Sununu (R, New Hampshire) became the first member of the Republican parliament to call for the resignation of Gonzales. Sununu cites not only the controversial dismissal but concerns over the use of the US PATRIOT Act and the abuse of national security letters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. His appeals to be overthrown after his testimony on April 19, 2007. On May 16, at least twenty-two Senators and seven Members of the House of Representatives - including Senators Hillary Clinton (D, New York) and Mark Pryor (D, Arkansas) - have called for resignation Gonzales.
Gonzales submitted his resignation as Attorney General effective September 17, 2007, with a letter addressed to President Bush on August 26, 2007. In a statement on August 27, Gonzales thanked the President for the opportunity to serve his country, giving no indication of some reason his resignation or his future plans. Later that day, President Bush praised Gonzales for his ministry, reading many positions in the Texas government, and later, the US government, which Bush had appointed to Gonzales.
On September 17, 2007, President Bush announced the nomination of former Judge Michael Mukasey to serve as a successor to Gonzales.
Sara Taylor's Testimony: Executive privilege claim
On July 11, 2007, Sara Taylor, former principal aide to Karl Rove, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Throughout Taylor's testimony, he refused to answer many questions, saying "I have a very clear letter from [White House counsel] Mr. [Fred] Fielding." The letter says and has asked me to follow the president's statement on executive privilege. Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) dismissed the claim and warned Taylor that he was "in danger of portraying a criminal offense over Congressional statements". Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) also questioned the claim, notifying Taylor
"You seem to be selective in using the presidential right.You seem to say that, 'Yes, I give you all the information I can,' when it serves itself to the White House, but it does not allow us to have information to make independent judgments." Leahy added , "I noted your answer that you did not discuss the matter with the president and, as far as your knowledge, he was not involved would make people nervous at the White House because it seriously underestimates his claim to the privilege of the executive if he is not involved." He also said , "It is clear that the White House is insulting Congress and feels that the White House does not have to explain it to anyone, not to people's representatives in Congress or to the American people."
In short, Taylor told the Senate that he was
"Not talking to or meeting with President Bush about issuing federal prosecutors before eight of them were dismissed", he has no knowledge of whether Bush is involved in dismissal, his resignation has nothing to do with the controversy, "he can not remember ordering an additional or deleting a name to the attorney list who will be sacked, "and he refuted the testimony of Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, that he was trying" to avoid sending a new prosecutor, Tim Griffin, through Senate confirmation. "
Contempt of Congress charges
On July 11, 2007, when Sara Taylor testified, George Manning, a lawyer for former White House Chairman Harriet Miers, announced that the Miers intend to follow the Bush Administration's request and not appear before the Committee the following day. Manning states Miers "can not provide the documents and testimonials the committee seeks."
In response to the announcement, Chairman of the Committee John Conyers (D-MI) and Chairman of Rep. Linda SÃÆ'¡nchez (D-CA) of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, released a letter saying the decision "could cause Ms. Miers to the insult process." Conyers writes
I am very disappointed with the White House's directive to Mrs. Miers that he did not even appear to assert privileges before the Committee. We understand that the White House has affirmed the privilege of its testimony and documents, and we are prepared to consider such claims at the hearing tomorrow.
Sennhez Menulis
It is disappointing that Ms. Miers has chosen to release this opportunity to give an account of the potential politicization of the judicial system. ", SÃÆ'¡nchez added" Our investigations have shown - through extensive interviews and document review - that Ms. Miers played a central role in the Bush Administration's decision to dismiss the federal prosecutor's head. I hope that Ny. Miers will reconsider the assertion of the White House executive privilege and give testimony about the dismissal of the US Attorney.
On July 17, 2007, Sanchez and Conyers told White House Counsel, Fred Fielding that they were considering an executive privilege claim regarding a "summons issued on June 13 to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, to produce the document." They warned, "If the objections are rejected, you should be aware that the refusal to make the document summoned in a subpoena can cause Mr. Bolten to insult the proceedings." The Panel decides the privilege claims as invalid on party 7-3 vote.
The White House has consistently refused to provide the documents it sought but "offers to allow its former and current aides to talk to MPs behind closed doors - but without transcripts and not under oath." This offer has been rejected by Democratic Leadership in the House as unacceptable.
On July 25, 2007, the United States Representative Committee on Justice voted along the lines of the 22-17 party to issue a quote from the Contempt of Congress to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Chairman Harriet Miers. The Republican Committee voted against it, calling it a "waste of time", while the Democrats say "it is time for Congress to control the government."
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said of the action,
To our view, this is sad. What you have now is the alignment on Capitol Hill that often leads to humiliation, satire, investigation and investigation rather than the pursuit of normal business to try to pass the main law... now we have a situation where there is an effort to do something that has never been done in American history, that is to attack the concept of executive privilege, which comes back to George Washington administration ".
Chairman of the Committee John Conyers said
Unlike other disputes involving executive privileges, the president has never personally asserted privileges. The committee has never been granted a privilege log, and no indication that the president has personally been involved in the termination decision.
Upon passing the Committee, the motion goes to the full House, where it is impossible to accept a vote until after the August Congressional Congress. If the measure passes full House, the case will be awarded to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. "The government says it will direct federal prosecutors not to sue allegations of disgust."
On February 14, 2008, the United States House of Representatives voted 223-32 along party lines to submit an insult resolution to the White House Chief of Staff, Bolten, and former White House Counsel Miers. Most Republicans went on strike during the vote.
Aftermath
Missed court and email calls
A White House spokesman stated that some emails that have been involved in official correspondence relating to the shooting of lawyers may have been lost because they were carried on Republican accounts and not stored properly. "Some official e-mails are potentially lost and it is a mistake that the White House is aggressively working to fix it." said Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman. Stonzel said that they can not rule out the possibility that some missing emails were linked to the dismissal of US lawyers. For example, J. Scott Jennings, a Karl Rove aide who communicates with Justice Department officials "about the appointment of Tim Griffin, Rove's former assistant, as US lawyer in Little Rock, according to an e-mail released in March 2007. For the exchange, Jennings, despite working in the White House, using an e-mail account registered with the Republican National Committee, where Griffin has worked as a political opposition researcher. "
CNN reports a larger question about missing emails: "Do White House officials such as political advisers Karl Rove deliberately conduct sensitive presidential business presidents through non-government accounts to avoid legislation requiring conservation - and ultimately disclosure - of presidential records. "
On May 2, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a summons to Attorney General Gonzales who encouraged the Department of Justice to produce all emails from Karl Rove on the evaluation and dismissal of lawyers sent to DOJ staff, no matter what Rove email account may have used, White, National Republican Party, or other account, with a deadline of 15 May 2007, for compliance. Court calls also demanded relevant emails previously produced in the Valerie Plame controversy and investigation for the 2003 CIA leak scandal.
In August 2007, Karl Rove resigned without responding to a Senate Senate committee claiming, "I just think it's time to go."
The President of the United States has the authority to appoint a US Attorney, with the approval of the United States Senate, and the President may revoke US Attorney from office. In terms of vacancies, the US Attorney General has the authority to appoint a US interim prosecutor. Prior to March 9, 2006, the temporary appointment expires after 120 days, if the appointment of the President has not been approved by the Senate. Vacancies lasting beyond 120 days are filled through a temporary appointment made by the Federal District Court for an empty office district.
The 2005 PATRIOT Law Enforcement and Reauthorization Act, signed into law March 9, 2006, amends the law for temporary appointment of US Attorney by removing two provisions: (a) a maximum period of 120 days for the temporary appointment of the Attorney General, and (b) the authority of the subsequent temporary appointment of the Federal District Court. With a revision, a temporary candidate may potentially serve indefinitely (although it may still be released by the President), if the President refuses to nominate a US Attorney for vacancy, or the Senate fails to act on the President's nomination, or rejects a different candidate from a temporary designee.
On 14 June 2007, President Bush signed the bill into a law that re-established the 120-day deadline for an interim attorney appointed by the Attorney General.
See also
- 2017 U.S. lawyer's dismissal
- List of federal political scandals in the United States
- Don Siegelman
- Cyril Wecht
- The Association of Community Organizations for Current Reform (ACORN)
- Bradley Schlozman
- Rachel Paulose
Note
References and external links
- Letters and resignation emails, and other related documents organized by WSJ
- Taylor, Marissa; Margaret Talev (2007-06-18). "A & JAA for US Attorneys". McClatchy Washington Bureau . McClatchy's newspaper. Archived from original June 2, 2008 . Retrieved 2007-06-20 .
- The Washington Post on the in-depth coverage site on dismissal: "Special Report: Investigation of US Attorney Lawyers". The Washington Post. 2007-03-05 . Retrieved 2010-05-01 .
- Inside US Lawyer E-Mail: Main Players and Themes Wall Street Journal (the most significant email review).
- Allegra Hartley Timeline: How US Lawyers Are Sacked US. News & amp; World Report April 18, 2007.
- Articles and books
- Reference to the US Attorney controversy
- Spotlight Profile from Gonzales Seven, plus One ePluribus Media
- United States Attorney The New York Times
- Political Profile of Selected Democracy Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Moves Amuk ePluribus Media
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments