Reporting on demands that current and former White House aides testify before Congress about their involvement in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, many in the media have left out a possible compelling reason for Congress' insistence that a record be made of the aides' appearances: the numerous instances in this matter, and previously, in which the administration has made false or inconsistent statements to investigators, Congress, and the public.

Some media coverage that has included reports of the dispute between Congress and the White House over whether White House aides' testimony would be transcribed has either not mentioned or not connected it with the administration's record of false statements. For example:

• In a March 27 article on Justice Department White House liaison Monica Goodling's announcement that, if forced to testify before Congress, she would assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, USA Today noted the “firestorm” created by both the firings and the Justice Department's “shifting explanations” for them. But, while the article noted the transcription dispute regarding the testimony of White House senior adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, it did not connect that dispute to the administration's “shifting explanations.”

• On the March 26 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux reported that Goodling's announcement “puts more pressure ... on this White House to move forward” and agree to let Rove and Miers testify under oath and on the record. “That is not going to happen,” Malveaux stated, because the White House “still say[s] there is no deal regarding” the conditions for their testimony. “They feel that voluntary discussions behind the scenes [are] good enough.” Malveaux did not explain why members of Congress might not agree that private, off-the-record conversations with Miers and Rove are not “good enough.”

• On the March 23 broadcast of CBS' The Early Show, CBS News Justice Department correspondent Bob Orr quoted Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) rejecting the White House's no-transcript demand and then reported that “Gonzales promised to cooperate with congressional investigators.” But Orr did not explore how the congressional demand for a transcript is, in part, motivated by the administration's apparent lack of cooperation so far.

• In a March 22 article reporting that the House Judiciary Committee had voted to authorize subpoenas for Rove and four other White House officials, The New York Times noted the White House's insistence on there not being a transcript of the interviews, without noting the administration's history of false statements.

Below is a list of some of the more notable administration falsehoods regarding the U.S. attorney scandal:

False or inconsistent statements to congressional committees or individual members of Congress

• In a March 13 letter to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and others, acting Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Hertling wrote: “The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. [J. Timothy] Griffin” as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
  
  In fact, on March 15, The Washington Post noted that “internal Justice [Department] e-mails show that 'getting [Griffin] appointed is important' to Rove and was closely monitored by political aides in the White House.” In particular, in a December 16, 2006, email regarding the controversy over Griffin's appointment, Gonzales' then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, wrote that “getting [Griffin] appointed was important to Harriet [Miers], Karl [Rove], etc.” Griffin, as Media Matters has noted, is a former aide to Rove and a former research director at the Republican National Committee.
  
  In a March 28 letter to House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law chairwoman Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Hertling noted that there was an “apparent contradiction” between the February 23 letter and documents later released by the Justice Department.

• As Media Matters has documented, testifying under oath at a January 18 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales stated that the administration would not attempt to circumvent the Senate and would submit the names of anyone slated to replace the dismissed U.S. attorneys for Senate consideration: “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.” 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.” In addition, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William E. Moschella told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law at a March 6 hearing that “the Administration is committed to having a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney in every single federal district” and “the Administration at no time intended to circumvent the confirmation process.”
  
  However, recently released emails from Sampson indicate an intention to take advantage of the change in the law by simply installing interim U.S. attorneys to serve indefinitely without nomination and Senate confirmation in the cases of those interim appointees -- like Griffin -- who are likely to be opposed by their home-state senators. As the Post put it in its March 15 article, “Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department had no intention of avoiding Senate input on the hiring of U.S. attorneys. Just a month earlier, D. Kyle Sampson ... laid out a plan to do just that.”

• The March 15 Post article also noted that, on March 6, Moschella “told a House Judiciary subcommittee that the White House was not consulted on the firings until the end of the process.” In particular, Moschella testified that the process used to develop the list of U.S. attorneys slated for dismissal started in October 2006 and that the White House was “eventually” consulted on the list “because these are political appointees. ... [W]e would -- which is unremarkable -- send the list to the White House and let them know ... our proposal, and whether they ... agreed with it.”
  
  But as the weblog Talking Points Memo has noted, Sampson twice sent Miers a tentative list of U.S. attorneys to be dismissed -- in January and September 2006. As The Washington Post reported on March 13, “In January 2006, Sampson sent to the White House the first list of seven candidates for dismissal, including four who were fired at year's end. ... In September, Sampson produced another list of firing candidates, telling the White House that [then-U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas H.E. ”Bud"] Cummins [III] was 'in the process of being pushed out' and providing the names of eight others whom 'we should consider pushing out.' " In addition, on March 24, the Post reported that “Sampson's attorney,” Bradford A. Berenson, “has said that others in the Justice Department were fully aware of 'several years' of discussions with the White House about dismissing the prosecutors.”

• In his January 18 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, Gonzales stated that “quite frankly, some people should view [the firing of the U.S. attorneys] as a sign of good management. What we do is, we make an evaluation about the performance of individuals. And I have a responsibility to the people in your district that we have the best possible people in these positions.” He continued: “I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.”
  
  However, as Media Matters has noted, at a February 6 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty conceded that performance played no role in at least one of those cases: the forced resignation of Cummins as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

• Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) has said that, at the March 6 House Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Moschella gave a different reason for the firing of Northern Nevada U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden than the one Ensign said he was given in a December 2006 phone call. According to a March 8 Las Vegas Review-Journal article, “Ensign said last month he was told the dismissal was for 'performance reasons.' ... But Tuesday [March 6], Deputy Attorney General William Moschella told a House subcommittee 'no particular deficiencies' in Bogden's performance existed.” According to the article, Ensign said, “What the Justice Department testified yesterday is inconsistent with what they told me,” adding, “I can't even tell you how upset I am at the Justice Department.” The article continued: “Asked whether he believed he was misled, Ensign said, 'I was not told the same thing that I was at the hearing, let me put it that way.' ”

• Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) said that in the summer of 2006, when he asked the Justice Department why Cummins was leaving, he “was informed that [Cummins] was doing so to pursue other opportunities.” As Media Matters has noted, later on, during the same hearing, McNulty stated that Cummins was forced to resign in order to “provide a fresh start with a new person” -- Griffin -- “in that position.”

False or inconsistent statements to the media

• As noted by the weblog Think Progress, after Griffin was appointed interim U.S. attorney in Arkansas, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in late December 2006 that the reason Cummins' deputy, Jane Duke, was passed over in favor of Griffin was because Duke was pregnant:

[Roehrkasse] noted that often, the first assistant U.S. attorney in the affected district will serve as the acting U.S. attorney until the formal nomination process begins for a replacement. But in this case, “the first assistant is on maternity leave,” he said, referring to Jane Duke, who gave birth to twins earlier than expected the same week of the announcement.

However, as noted above, McNulty testified that Cummins was forced to resign to make room for Griffin. Likewise, as noted by Talking Points Memo, a January 16 Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) reported that, in an interview, Cummins said that “a top Justice official” -- later revealed to be Mike Battle, director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys -- “asked for his resignation in June, saying the White House wanted to give another person the opportunity to serve.”

• On March 3, The Washington Post reported that, according to “officials,” “McNulty consulted his predecessor as deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, about some of the prosecutors before approving the list. Comey ... praised Iglesias earlier this week as one of the department's best prosecutors.”
  
  However, two days later, the Post reported that “administration officials said they were mistaken in saying that McNulty consulted his predecessor, James B. Comey, about some of the U.S. attorneys before they were fired. Comey was not consulted, the officials said.”

• On March 21, the Post reported that the documents released by the Justice Department portrayed “McNulty and other senior Justice officials struggl[ing] to cope with pressure from increasingly agitated lawmakers.” As an example, the Post reported, without further explanation, that a “Justice spokesman sought to mislead a reporter by questioning the accuracy of his sources, as other officials revised the administration's story and deflected queries from Congress about the firings.”

Additionally, President Bush and members of his administration have been caught making other false or inconsistent statements to Congress, federal investigators, and the public:

• On March 6, former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was convicted on one count of making false statements to FBI agents, two counts of perjury before a federal grand jury, and one count of obstruction of justice.

• On March 23, former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of justice. According to a March 23 AP report, Griles “admitt[ed] in a plea agreement that he lied in testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on Nov. 2, 2005, and during an earlier deposition with the panel's investigators on October 20, 2005.” A March 23 post on Washington Wire, a Wall Street Journal weblog, observed that a “transcript of the Senate interview is what helped get Griles in trouble.”

• On June 20, 2006, David H. Safavian, former chief of staff at the General Services Administration (GSA), was found guilty “of obstructing an inquiry by the inspector general's office of the GSA and of lying to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, a GSA ethics officer and the GSA inspector general,” according to a June 21, 2006, article in The Washington Post. As Media Matters noted, Safavian resigned “days before” his September 2005 arrest. The Post added that he “was convicted in U.S. District Court ... of covering up his many efforts to assist [convicted Republican lobbyist Jack] Abramoff in acquiring two properties controlled by the GSA, and also of concealing facts about a lavish weeklong golf trip he took with Abramoff to Scotland and London in the summer of 2002.”

• On April 7, 2005, John T. Korsmo, former chairman of the Federal Housing Finance Board "pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees the Finance Board, and the Inspector General for the Finance Board," as Media Matters noted. The committee and inspector general were investigating Korsmo's participation in an October 2002 congressional fundraising event.

• As Salon.com columnist Joe Conason noted in his March 23 column, at least twice in public statements, Rove denied any involvement in disclosing then-CIA operative Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA. As Media Matters has noted, Rove did so first during a September 29, 2003, ABC News broadcast, then during an August 31, 2004, CNN interview. Rove also allowed others to make the same denials; as Media Matters has noted, then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan twice denied that Rove had been involved in leaking Plame's identity.
  
  In fact, Rove informed then-Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper that Plame worked at the CIA, and, in a separate conversation, confirmed it to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, as Media Matters has noted, who subsequently published Plame's CIA identity.

• As Media Matters has noted, according to the AP, Bush said on November 1, 2006, that Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney “are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them.” The AP also reported that Bush “replied in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Rumsfeld and Cheney to stay with him until the end.”
  
  At his November 8 press conference, the day after the 2006 midterm elections, Bush announced that Rumsfeld would resign. Asked to explain the reversal, Bush admitted he had not told the truth: “And the reason why is, I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer.”

From the March 23 broadcast of CBS' The Early Show:

ORR: Anxious to escape the political heat in Washington, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales launched a rehabilitation tour in St. Louis.

GONZALES: Good to be out of Washington.

ORR: Gonzales met with Midwestern U.S. attorneys and pushed prosecutions of child predators, but he could not avoid the controversy surrounding his firing of eight federal prosecutors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: General, as you're aware, there's a growing chorus of critics from both parties now demanding either that you resign or that the president fire you. What is your response, sir?

GONZALES: I'm not going to resign. I'm going to stay focused on protecting our kids. There's a lot of work that needs to be done around the country.

ORR: It's a message Gonzales will carry in a road trip strategy next week as he meets with all U.S. attorneys to assure them he is committed to moving forward.

LEAHY: The ayes do have it. The subpoenas are authorized.

ORR: But on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats cranked up the pressure on Gonzales and the president. The Judiciary Committee voted to authorize subpoenas, if needed, to compel testimony from top White House aides. Mr. Bush has said adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers could be interviewed, but only with strict conditions.

LEAHY: We are told that we could have a closed-door meeting with no transcript, not under oath, limited number of people, and the White House would determine what the agenda is. That, to me, is nothing.

ORR: Gonzales promised to cooperate with congressional investigators but, again, denied playing politics with the firings.

GONZALES: No United States attorney was fired for improper reasons.

ORR: Gonzales, like the president, seems intent on digging in for a long fight, but when his U.S. attorney meeting tour is over, his critics will be waiting in Washington. Bob Orr, CBS News, St. Louis.