NY Times report on U.S. attorney scandal ignored evidence that DOJ may have broken law
SUMMARY: An article in the New York Times "Week in Review" section left out a key element in the controversy over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys: Justice Department emails appear to contradict Alberto Gonzales' congressional testimony, in which he said that the administration intended to seek Senate approval for every U.S. attorney appointed to replace those who had been fired.
In a March 18 "Week in Review" article -- headlined " For Federal Prosecutors, Politics is Ever-Present" -- New York Times reporter Adam Liptak wrote that "[w]hatever motivated the recent firings" of eight U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration, the dismissals "are of a piece with the administration's efforts to centralize power in Washington." To illustrate this effort, Liptak noted that a "law pushed through last year as part of the U.S.A. Patriot Act gave the Justice Department even more power" by allowing the attorney general to install interim U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. But in citing this change, Liptak left out a key element of the controversy and, therefore, key evidence that the controversy goes beyond a political dispute: Recently released emails provide evidence that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other high-ranking Justice Department officials gave false testimony to Congress, including testimony about the administration's intention to seek Senate approval for appointees replacing the fired U.S. attorneys and about the Justice Department officials' motivations in dismissing them.
In the article, Liptak explained how the new Patriot Act provision affected the U.S. attorney appointment process:
Whatever motivated the recent firings, they are of a piece with the administration's efforts to centralize power in Washington.
"A crisis like the Sept. 11 attacks creates the occasion for a monolithic model for law enforcement and national security," said Peter S. Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University. "It creates a lot of pressure for a top-down model. That includes even traditionally autonomous actors like U.S. attorneys."
A law pushed through last year as part of the U.S.A. Patriot Act gave the Justice Department even more power. In the past, United States attorneys appointed to fill vacancies had to be confirmed by the Senate within 120 days. If not, a local federal judge filled the position.
Now such interim United States attorneys, chosen solely by the Justice Department, can serve indefinitely.
But Liptak did not note Gonzales' testimony under oath that the administration would not attempt to circumvent the Senate and would nominate for Senate consideration everyone slated to replace departing U.S. attorneys. On January 18, he told the committee: "I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney. I think a United States attorney -- who I view as the leader, the law-enforcement leader, my representative in the community -- I think he has greater imprimatur of authority if, in fact, that person's been confirmed by the Senate."
Gonzales went on to testify that he "agree[d]" with Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) belief that "that these positions should come to this committee [the Senate Judiciary Committee] for confirmation." Later, Gonzales reiterated the administration's position: "I've said to the committee today, under oath, that we are fully committed to try to find presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys for every position."
But recently released emails from D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff, indicate an intention to take advantage of the change in the law by simply allowing interim U.S. attorneys to serve indefinitely without nomination and Senate confirmation in the cases of interim appointees who are likely to be opposed by their home-state senators. In a December 19, 2006, email, Sampson wrote of the appointment of J. Timothy Griffin -- a former research director for the Republican National Committee and aide to White House senior adviser Karl Rove -- as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas:
I think we should gum this to death: ask the [Arkansas] Senators [Democrats Mark L. Pryor and Blanche L. Lincoln] to give Tim [Griffin] a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say, "no never" (and the longer we can forestall that, the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in "good faith," of course.
Sampson continued:
Overall, I think we should take the temperature way down -- our guy is in there so the status quo is good for us. Ask for them to consider him; note that he is qualified and doing a good job whenever asked; pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney; and otherwise hunker down. ... The only thing really at risk here is a repeal of the AG's [attorney general's] appointment authority. We intend to have DOJ [Department of Justice] leg[islative] affairs people on notice to work hard to preserve this (House members won't care about this; all we really need is for one Senator to object to language being added to legislative vehicles that are moving through). There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it? (I'm not 100 percent sure that Tim [Griffin] was the guy on which to test drive this authority, but know that getting him appointed was important to [then-White House counsel] Harriet [Miers], Karl [Rove], etc.)
As Media Matters for America has noted, Democrats have proposed legislation that would reverse the new Patriot Act provision, and Gonzales reportedly has said that the administration will not oppose such legislation. But Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) has reportedly indicated that he intends to block the reversal.
As Media Matters has also noted, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has alleged that Sampson "knew that he was causing DOJ officials to make inaccurate statements to Congress," when these officials testified before Congress about the attorney dismissals. According to CREW, DOJ officials testified "that the U.S. Attorneys were asked to resign for performance related reasons, that the White House was minimally involved in the firings and that the Department was in no way attempting to evade the confirmation process for new U.S. Attorneys." In its request for the appointment of a special prosecutor, CREW noted the existence of documents that appear to prove that "at least two officials, former White House Legal Counsel Harriet Miers and Sampson, schemed to fire prosecutors for political reasons." CREW went on to assert that "[f]ederal law provides that if Sampson knew that he was causing DOJ officials to make inaccurate statements to Congress, he can be prosecuted for the federal crime of lying to Congress even though he did not personally make any statements to Congress."
Every time you poke at the Bush Administration, a foul smelling puss oozes out. What you'll find inside is putrid and corrupt. I hope this brings the whole gang down.
I don't know what will happen. Let's see how good these Democrats are at conducting a fair and thorough investigation of this.
Gonzales was an absolutely terrible choice for AG and should have never been confirmed to begin with. I really don't see this type of "scandal" all that shocking considering what happened with regards to torture/abuse under Gonzales when he was WH Counsel.
When we put a man in the highest position of law enforcement that has already described the Geneva Conventions as "quaint", can we say we are really all that surprised at anything that happens after that?
Do these politicians have a clue anymore? This is the reason that most people ignore, or have absolutely no interest in, our government today.It is just one scandal after another, one coverup over another coverup, one more investigation investigating some other impropriety.......it never ends, and is so unseemly that we should all be embarassed to have elected these buffoons to office, the whole lot of them.
When do they ever have time to conduct our nation's business? To do what we elected them to do? To confront the issues and problems that face us every day? It's gotcha politics from every angle.
I also meant to say, this is what happens when one party is in total control and has all the power for any length of time.......they cannot be trusted, neither party. Divided government keeps them in check, apparently, so if that happens over the foreseeable future, maybe these investigations and scandals will start to wane.
They're like bratty kids that need supervision and timely spankings.
and that rival sibling to rat them out when they're messing around.
I don't know what Congress you've been watching for the last 6 years, but I don't recall any substantial or what I would consider serious investigations (other than maybe Fitzgerald's). You had better put on your helmet and buckle up, because the Democrats are likely going to make up for some lost time. Good for us.
This is what happens inevitably after one party has been in complete control for too long. The administration has apparently become pretty sloppy and arrogant with their power likely due to the fact that no one previously would/could subpoena them or their records successfully. The administration has gotten away with so much before, they apparently believed they would never be caught.
I am glad to see the Democrats fulfil their Constitutional oversight responsibility even if it means 2 or 3 more years of investigations. As long as the Democrats are fair and transparent, I can't see any real reason to complain about it.
You'd better helmet yourself into your naive partisanship if you think this isn't payback time for the Democrats.......deserved or not, these investigations from both sides are far more interested in politics and discrediting the other party, than about what's good for the country and some sense of fair play.
Let the invesigations move forward and let the Democrats do what they must........just don't act as though they have the market cornered on integrity.
Oh, I think it is some combination of genuine dismay at what six years of roughshod Republican rule has tone to the country and naked partisanship.
I wish they could have started somewhere else than a complicated issue like the attorney firings - investigating military contractors would have been near the top of my list. I'm hoping the NSL abuses haven't completely fallen off the radar, too.
My guess is this issue with the attorneys just fell into their laps and they ran with it. It is business-as-usual partisanship in that way, but that doesn't mean that there isn't also something to it.
I do wish I had something into which to put my hopes and dreams of this country other than the Democratic Party. Oy.
so long as throughout whatever hearings transpire, I can revel in reflections on the mythical destination of Repugnants after life - they have themselves constructed, to keep the masses of dimwits in eternal fear - a picture of Hell that should prove suitable, I think.
I don't even think you actually read my posts before you reply on autopilot. I made no such suggestion that the Democrats "have the market cornered on integrity". I fully expect the Democrats to screw up at some point and be the subject of investigation. Jefferson is and should be investigated for his alleged involvement in bribery and fraud. It may be annoying, but without investigations to keep people honest, not much else will do it.
BTW, I actually framed the debate in a non-partisan and even-handed way. "This is what happens inevitably after one party has been in complete control for too long." It was framed very similarly to your own argument: "this is what happens when one party is in total control and has all the power for any length of time", but somehow I was the partisan one in your mind.
I thought Tommy's comment was unfounded too. He's usually more careful than that.
"deserved or not, these investigations from both sides are far more interested in politics and discrediting the other party, than about what's good for the country and some sense of fair play."
You are denying the very possibility of an honest, worthwhile investigation. You can say that quote about any scandal, anytime, no matter how obviously immoral or illegal the behavior appears to be. You admit that the deservedness is not a factor in the partisan nature, so I'm not sure exactly what you expect here. You also admit in another post that a balance of power is necessary to keep both parties in check. Why? Because a party won't honestly investigate themselves, obviously, otherwise one party could have full reign and keep itself in check. If one party does check itself, then the other won't, and that creates an obvious advantage for the party with less integrity (ironically by creating the illusion that it has more, because of fewer publicized scandals).
So on one hand, we need divided government so that one party can investigate the other. But on the other hand, no matter how deserved the investigations are, it's more about partisanship than accountability. The very thing we need to maintain honest and accountable government, by your own definition, is disingenuous interest in honest, accountable government. Even though one party is pretty much forced to hold the other accountable (or NObody will), any efforts to do so smack of naked partisanship.
So again, what do you expect? Should Dems be less about "politics" and let Repubs get away with anything they want to do, or what? Is there a line? If it looks like Bush was selling our military secrets to Al Queda for cocaine money, and Republicans refuse to address it, would any investigations by Democrats be more about partisanship than doing what's best for the country or a sense of fair play? I hope not, so I wonder where you draw that line.
I don't know whether the comments that appear under the name you've responded to, are from anyone giving their sincere opinion, or are from some hack shill, serving as a 'repeater' of excuses and deflections and lies and talking points...
...call them "little foxes".
As for the talking point itself, namely "any Congressional inquiry into the firings of the U.S. Attorneys is politically motivated", it's not only a common dodge with these folks, but it's what they usually resort to when there is evidence (and guilt) of a crime...
The crime here being (should it turn out that these firings were meant to interfere with or prevent any Federal investigation or prosecution) Obstruction of Justice.
Of course, we have that 'political' talking point resorted to now, in a big way: The White House spokesman referring to their obvious attempts to head off Congressional hearings on this matter (sounds like Avoidance of Justice) as being an attempt to avoid a "media spectacle", in addition to his asking Congress rhetorically "...are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?"
Again, it's a common defelection they resort to, when they're guilty of some crime.
Take the indicted tom delay as an example: When his indictment was handed down, both he and the many "media" hacks went into overdrive, counter-charging that Travis County district attorney Ronnie Earle was conducting a 'political vendetta' against tom delay...
Remember?
Here's an MMFA item http://mediamatters.org/items/200510140007 titled...
CNN's Henry reported that DeLay legal issues are "mostly about politics"
...to refresh your memory.
When they first floated that particular defense ("it's all politics you know!"), it didn't fly very high... and has since crash-landed, and seems like a joke now, that they would have ever even attempted such a weasely dodge...
...but old habits die hard, and criminals often resort reflexively, to whatever excuses and alibis they're accustomed to making... however weak or weasley.
And as for the "little foxes" who serve as 'repeaters' of the excuses and the deflections and the lies and the talking points:
We have from the Holy Scriptures, from the Book of the Song of Solomon, chapter two, verse fifteen...
"Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes"
EIght down, eighty five to go!!!
Oscar:
Fair enough, so long as first we investigate every Repugnant who ever lived, and imprison all that we can convict! Then, we have to clean out the Bungle-Boyz on the bench:
Class Action Denied In Enron Case
Anti-Trust Undermined By Courts
Finally, with the decks cleared, we can address the matter of Corporations per se.
Although the NYTimes piece may be marginally deficient in the way noted (and the email quoted by MMFA is a choice tidbit), the NY Times editorials have been outspoken on the issue of the attourney firings. On March 19 they ran an op/ed piece by Adam Cohen that points out at least three illegal things that might have occurred, and suggests that a law student given this situation as an "issue spotter" exam who found nothing potentially amiss would flunk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials
(may require a "Times Select" subscription).
MMFA should continue to hold the New York Times and other respected American press accountable for thorough and objective coverage. In my opinion this is a far more important mission than noting idiotic things said by Limbaugh, Savage or Beck, or that they achieved recognition by Olbermann.