The Daily Background

Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), of the Senate Judiciary Committee said today “He has always been straightforward and honest with me… So, unless there is clear evidence that the attorney general deliberately lied or misled Congress, I see no reason to call for his resignation.” Okay, Hatch. You want your clear evidence that he deliberately lied and mislead Congress? Here it is.

Example #1
Gonzales making an unequivicol statement to reporters, and the country on March 13:

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…. 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.”

Versus NBC News last night:

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.

Example #2
Gonzales lied to Senator Marc Pryor (D-Arkansas) about his intentions to send new US Attorney Tim Griffin (of Pryor’s home state) through normal Senate confirmation hearings. In fact, emails show that the DoJ planned to “gum up” the proess and essentially kill it by stalling it to death and have Griffin appointed by a PATRIOT Act loophole. More on Pryor’s story of how Gonzales lied to him personally here.

Example #3
Gonzales making an unequivicol statement to Congress on January 18:

“I would never ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or that in any way would jeopardize an ongoing investigation. I just would not do it.”

Versus the transcript of a Meet The Press segment from March 18, when Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) explains how Gonzales jeopardized ongoing investigations to host Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: Do you have any evidence that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation?

SCHUMER: We do have evidence. In fact, four of the U.S. attorneys who were fired believe that played a role in their removal. Remember, these folks were called up all of a sudden on December 7th. They thought they were doing, doing a good job. They said, “You’re not doing - you’re fired.” “Why?” “We can’t tell you.” Then they say - there’s a little pressure. They say they weren’t doing their job right. We get hold of the evaluations done by their peers, the judges, everyone in their district, they all get outstanding ratings. And then it comes out that in four of these instances, they were asked to pursue cases, individual cases, not a general policy, they were asked to pursue individual cases that they thought they shouldn’t or they were perhaps pressured to stop. So, yes, there is evidence there in the - in the U.S. attorney’s mind.

But, Tim, we don’t have proof yet, conclusive, beyond a reasonable doubt proof. That’s why we have to go forward with the investigation.

RUSSERT: But this is a very serious charge, Senator. Let me show you a map of the United States and where these U.S. attorneys come from. There you’ll see up in Michigan and then we have them in New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Arkansas, Washington state and two in California. Where specifically did a U.S. attorney stop investigating or was a criminal justice case interrupted because of one of their removals?

SCHUMER: The most notorious is the Southern District of California, San Diego. Ms. Lam, the U.S. attorney, had already brought about the conviction of Duke Cunningham. It came out in the newspapers that she was continuing to pursue that investigation and it might lead to others, legislative and others. And in the middle of this investigation, she was fired. So I asked the deputy attorney general, “Why was she fired?” He said, “Well, she wasn’t doing enough immigration re-entry cases.” I said, “Really?” She - he said, did you tell - I asked him, “Did you tell her?” She said yes. I said, “Well, did she improve?” This was back in the summer. “Did she improve?” He said, “I have no idea.” Well, gee whiz, if you’re firing someone in the middle of the most heated political investigation in America, don’t you think you ought to have a reason and know the reason?

Filed under: Z-TDB Blog