Rove In the Middle of U.S. Attorney Flap

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As I'm sure most of you are aware, a controversy over the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys has been steadily growing over the past few weeks. The issue isn't so much that the 8 were fired; after all U.S. Attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president. The issue isn't even so much that their firings were politically motivated, although some of the circumstances were pretty messy and suspicious. Politically motivated hirings and firings are the rule, not the exception. No, what has gotten the White House and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez in particularly hot water is the fact that assertions were made, some even under oath by Justice Department officials testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the White House had nothing to do with these firings. Yet more and more information has come out proving that those assertions were completely false.

And guess who is at the center of the storm?

Karl Rove, who managed to escape Plamegate unscathed against all the odds, is once again emerging as the main driving force behind the administrations actions. An e-mail surfaced today, that was entitled "Questions from Karl Rove" dated all the way back to Jan. 6, 2005:

"Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting), 'How we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.,'" Colin Newman, a legal aide in the White House counsel's office, wrote deputy counsel David Leitch.

And yet, remarkably, Rove is the one administration official who is continuing on the offensive on this issue. While Gonzalez and Bush assert that "mistakes were made" and tiptoe around the issue, Rove told journalism students earlier today that the decision to fire each prosecutor "was made at the Department of Justice on the basis of policy and personnel." "We're at a point where people want to play politics with it," Rove told students at a journalism seminar at Troy University in Alabama.

Will he once again manage to wangle his way out of it. The Judiciary Committee is making noises about compelling his testimony, as well as that of former White House Counsel (and abandoned Supreme Court nominee) Harriet Miers and other White House officials. Still, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Rove remains untouched, the true evil mastermind of the ever-more-disastrous second Bush administration.

[Primula Baggins]

The most interesting bit, to me, that came out today was that Rove was determined to get a reliable man in place as the US Attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas, as soon as possible—three guesses why, and the first two don't count.

It does feel good to see all this air and light getting let in on things like that. Not that Democrats are saints, but it is about time there was some proper Congressional oversight of the executive branch.

[Cerin]

I'm really distressed at the obfuscation I see going on in the media regarding the issue of the firing of the prosecutors. Here is the way I understand things:


1. Presidents at the beginning of new administrations have completely replaced the slate of federal prosecutors; I believe both Bush and Clinton did this at the beginning of their administrations. These prosecutors are political appointments, and have until this administration been subject to Senate confirmation.

So how does a federal prosecutor differ, say, from a FEMA appointee (both political appointees)? Are they both put into office to advance the administration's agenda with regard to their respective departments?

I say, no. I say the attorney is appointed to uphold the law, not to advance a political agenda. It is vital that once appointed, federal prosecutors are seen to function as independent arbiters of the law, not as servants to the goals of the President who appointed them. This is what Karl Rove, the President and the Attorney General do not seem to understand.


2. Though it is not unusual for Presidents to appoint a new slate of prosecutors at the beginning of their administrations, it is unprecedented for federal prosecutors to be fired during their terms except for cases of obvious malfeasance. In the preceding quarter of a century, only three federal prosecutors have been fired during their terms, as compared to eight in one day by the Bush administration. So the claim that this is business as usual is simply not true.


3. The emails that have emerged regarding the firings have shown that the White House was keeping a list of all the prosecutors and rating them for loyalty. That is, they were being rated not for their performance in upholding the law, but for their willingness to advance the administration's agenda by making trouble for Democrats rather than Republicans (the number of Democrats or Democrat-related issues prosecuted v. Republican is something like 248-70).

Again, what this administration doesn't seem to understand is that it is one thing, for example, to fill the Forest Service with incompetent hacks who are there just to advance the business interests of the lumber industry, and another thing to fill the federal prosecutors benches with attorneys who are there just to secure Republican political advantage (for example, by bringing Democrats up on bogus corruption charges just before a critical election). Though it is odious in the first case, it is dangerous to the very foundations of the republic in the second, because our rule of law must be seen to be separate from political machinations.


3. The reason the firings happened was because of a provision of the Patriot Act, of which it turns out many of the Congresspersons who passed it were unaware. Before this provision was passed, all the federal prosecutors were subject to Senate confirmation, and if 120 days passed without confirmation, then the confirmation would happen by judicial review. Now according to this provision, the Attorney General can replace prosecutors permanently without any confirmation at all! So as with all the other departments of government that have been corrupted and rendered useless by this administration through the appointment of non-qualified party loyalists, the administration was now free to corrupt the system of federal prosecutors in the same way. Thank God the Republicans were no longer in power, because they would have allowed it to happen just as they allowed all the other abuses of this administration.


4. Separate from these basics surrounding the firings, are all the issues involving members of the Justice Department who went before Congress and lied about it.


So it's not business as ususal to fire federal attorneys who are not towing the line for the administration who appointed them, and I'm distressed that they are successfully spinning this story to make it look like it is business as usual except for the lying.

Prim, re Arkansas, are you suggesting there will be more witch-hunting with respect to the Clintons?

[Primula Baggins]

That certainly seems like a strong possibility to me. At the very least they wanted to be sure of having a sympathetic federal prosecutor in place.

The charges don't have to pan out to hurt Clinton's chances.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In light of the new evidence that has come out, the White House has backed off its stance that Harriet Miers first raised the idea of firing U.S. Attorneys, blaming "hazy memories".

Prim, I'm not sure that the Arkansas U.S. Attorney was put in place specifically to go after the Clintons, though it is an interesting thought. I think it was more a question of Rove looking to help out his buddy and aide, Timothy Griffin. However, Griffin has a scary history. According to the BBC, he was responsible for a scheme to wipe out 70,000 citizens from the voting roles in the 2004 election. Targets included Black soldiers, homeless, and women. For the story, go here [Note: I can't vouch for how accurate this story is.]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The White House has offered to allow the Judiciary committees to interview Rove, Miers and a few other staffers informally, in private, not under oath, and with no transcripts. The Democratic chairmen of the committees rejected the offer and are preparing subpoenas to compel testimony under oath. Bush made a defiant statement this afternoon, vowing to fight the subpoenas. This could turn out to be a major battle.

Ironically, if Rove and the others were to be held in contempt of Congress, it would be up to the Justice Department to decide whether to prosecute them. More likely is the possibility that the chairmen will themselves ask the courts to enforce the subpoenas.

There doesn't seem to be a very good argument in favor of the "executive privilege" that the White House is claiming. There certainly is no issue of national security, as there was when they tried to keep Condi Rice from testifying in front of the 9/11 commission. But the courts have always been loathe to get involved in disputes between the other two branches of government, and I'm sure that the current Supreme Court would like to avoid being put in the position of deciding this one. Precedent definitely seems to favor compelling the testimony, but political loyalties might lead to a "Bush v. Gore" type decision, which would have grave implications for the Supreme Court's credibility. I don't expect that to happen. I don't think that Roberts is going to allow his future standing as the leader of the Court for the next 20 plus years (in all likelihood) be tarnished by latching onto Bush's sinking ship.

But it should be interesting.

[Cerin]

I don't expect that to happen. I don't think that Roberts is going to allow his future standing as the leader of the Court for the next 20 plus years (in all likelihood) be tarnished by latching onto Bush's sinking ship.

I wish I could share your optimism on that score.

I think the most salient point regarding the executive privilege claim, is that the Senate wants to question Rove about conversations he had with the Justice Department regarding the firings, not necessarily about conversations he might have had with the President.

[Primula Baggins]

One striking thing about all these emerging scandals and inquiries is the relative irrelevance of the president himself.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think the most salient point regarding the executive privilege claim, is that the Senate wants to question Rove about conversations he had with the Justice Department regarding the firings, not necessarily about conversations he might have had with the President.

That's an excellent point, Cerin. The sole basis that I have heard for the assertion of executive privilege has been to preserve the president's ability to get advice from his aides. That is simply not an issue here. As Prim points out, the president is largely irrelevant.

I am struck by the return of his blustering attitude, though. Gone is any semblance of the "reaching out" that he said he was going to do after the Democrats took control of Congress.

[Primula Baggins]

I think he's scared, and I think he has reason to be. Since 9/11 the administration has had complete control of the message and nearly complete control of Congress. Now even the mainstream media (except Fox) is asking at least some tough questions, and Congress of course is no longer entirely toadying.

I think they didn't realize in time that the world changed. That may be their downfall (if they have a downfall; at the very least I foresee two years of hearings and wrangling in the courts, and the undoing of at least some of their worst depredations to the Constitution and the regulatory structure).

[vison]

Hubris.


The Greeks did have a word for everything, didn't they?


Yes, the MSM fell down badly on the job until now, supine before the admininstration. What just slays me, so to speak, is the insistence in some quarters that the media are Liberal. Maybe they are, but you wouldn't know it from the past 6 years, would you?

[Padme]

Vison and Prim

I totally agree with both posts.

I have long suspected Rove as the twisted brains behind the president. I do not think that he will have much done, as he is a master escape artist. Any man who could get Bush elected using the low down horrible tactics Rove did won't get caught and sure won't admit to anything.

Here are some links, if anyone is interested. Sorry I don't remember how to shorten them without destroying the link itself.

fired_prosecutors_subpoenas

usa_prosecutors_showdown_dc

Edited to shrink links - VtF

[Cerin]

Well I hope the Democrats don't back down. I just heard Conyers sounding very conciliatory, and Snow stating that the issuance of subpoenas (I believe they've been readied but not issued?) would scuttle the possibility of anyone's appearance before any kind of panel.

It sounds as though the Democrats want to hold the threat of subpoenas as an incentive for some kind of agreement for some kind of testimony; but I agree with Leahy's initial statements, that anything that doesn't involve public statements under oath would be worthless.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Today the lawyer for Monica Goodling, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' liaison with the White House announced that she will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. I think this is very significant, because one of the justifications that the administration has used to distinguish this situation from previous situations where presidential advisors were compelled to testify to congress under oath is that there is no possibility that criminal behavior is involved. Well, if there is no possibility that criminal behavior is involved, there would be no reason for Ms. Goodling to plead the Fifth. I find her attorney's claim that it is simply the fact that Congress has so politicized the process that has raised the spectre of criminal liability to be, in a word, disingenuous. More importantly, the fact that the particular aide of Gonzales who was his liason with the White House is refusing to testify, despite his previous assertion that his aides what testify, gives rise to a strong inference that the reason that the White House is going to such extreme measures to keep Rove in particular from testifying is because of a similar fear of criminal liability.

[axordil]

I viewed the announcement as the public side of negotiations to get some degree of immunity in exchange for her testimony. But it would have to be REALLY good dirt she had to share to make that worth it. If the committee chair agrees to any such deal, it implies they think they can nail someone higher up with her help.

[Cerin]

Suppose everyone invokes their right not to self-incriminate? Where would that leave Congress with respect to the investigation?

[axordil]

That would be the classic Watergate-style stonewalling, and I can't think of a better way to invite political disaster. Doesn't mean they won't try it. But en masse invocation of the Fifth is going to be widely interpreted as admission of guilt.

[Cerin]

I think we need a special prosecutor to conduct a separate investigation. But fat chance.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think there is some chance that that will happen, Cerin, though I share your skepticism. There is certainly a growing movement in that direction. From CBS News' Court Watch, yesterday:

Getting most of the publicity this past weekend were official documents that directly contradict the statements Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales made a few weeks ago when he tried to distance himself from the burgeoning controversy over the Justice Department's firing of eight federal prosecutors last year. It was the sort of "gotcha" moment that many politicians, journalists and lawyers seem to live for in this age of canned spin and in-your-face denials (see, e.g., "Snow, Tony").

But perhaps the more important news coming out of the Justice Department late last week is that the Inspector General's office, and the Office of Professional Responsibility, are now undertaking an unusual and perhaps unprecedented joint internal investigation to determine whether any department officials, including lawyers, broke any rules or violated any laws throughout this process. The investigation reportedly was requested by the attorney general himself (to his credit) and is destined to shed more light on what really happened when the White House and its tribunes at the Justice Department decided to whack eight U.S. attorneys for not being, in the words of one official, "loyal Bushies."

This sort of internal investigation may not ultimately give us all the answers we seek — it's unsettling at best to have Justice Department officials investigating Justice Department officials under the supervision of an attorney general who himself may ultimately become a target or subject of the investigation. And if you were a conspiracy theorist, you might be inclined to believe that the fix is in, what with the fox checking on security at the henhouse. Well, it isn't. The Gang That Couldn't Fire Straight — Gonzales and Company — are going to be subject to the sort of scrutiny never before brought to bear upon the subject of the dismissal of federal prosecutors. This is what occurs when you try to fire your own prosecutors in the middle of a term without an obvious (or honorable) reason for doing so.

Indeed, Glenn A. Fine, the inspector general, seems well suited to undertake a fair and thorough look at this mess as part of his office's investigation. Fine is himself a former assistant U.S. attorney and has worked at the OIG for over 10 years. Most importantly, as a career bureaucrat, he is not beholden as so many other Justice Department are to the current administration — he was confirmed as inspector general in the final days of the Clinton administration. Moreover, his large staff of lawyers, investigators and auditors (The New York Times Monday puts this number at 400) just completed a scathing report critical of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its misuse of national security letters.

He is an unlikely candidate, therefore, to sweep under the rug whatever remaining garbage emerges from this scandal. Nor, for that matter, is H. Marshall Jarrett, the disciplined and well-respected head of the Office of Professional Responsibility, likely to suffer gladly the many Bush administration fools who have brought us with this episode to the intersection of Farce and Conspiracy. The OPR component of the investigation will focus upon Justice Department lawyers (including the attorney general and Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty) and their role in this fiasco. Jarrett and Fine together, especially if they can coordinate their efforts and avoid bureaucratic turf wars, will make a formidable team trying to determine how bad this problem is, and who was and is involved.

But what if their investigation is stymied by the attorney general or the White House? What if Fine and Jarrett and their competent and professional sleuths within the Justice Department uncover from among the disparate stories offered by their co-workers evidence of criminal conduct or even the residue of criminal conduct? While it would be nice to think that we have seen and heard the absolutely worse about this controversy, what if we haven't? What if the changing stories offered by Justice Department officials, including the attorney general, mask some darker conspiracy? I'm not predicting this will occur — in fact, I doubt it. But what if it keeps getting worse?

We already have seen over the past week or so the inherent limitations that arise when Congress tries to nose in on executive branch business. The Democrats can only put so much political pressure on the White House and Justice Department to cooperate with legislative oversight before administration officials snap back with the executive privilege argument (a trump card here, if you ask me). If the current impasse is not broken by a reasonable compromise — and who accuses each side here of being terribly reasonable? — we'll have a discomforting and ultimately unsatisfactory fight in court over who has to turn over what and when. So then what?

A special prosecutor. That's right — another special prosecutor. And while it may be a bit premature to talk about that possibility — maybe Fine and Jarrett in the end will find it was all just negligence or gross incompetence without any nefarious intent — it is not beyond the scope of comprehension. After all, it is a crime to deceive Congress. It is a crime to try to obstruct a criminal investigation. And it is a crime to threaten a prosecutor. So if Fine and Jarrett uncover even a whiff of any of this, and refer the matter for prosecution or some other formal legal action, it seems to me it will be impossible for Gonzales (if he is still around) and the White House to stem the calls for a Fitzgeraldian Figure (that's Patrick, not F. Scott) to restore honor, integrity, order and, yes, justice back to the Justice Department.

A few weeks ago, when this hullabaloo was just getting started, I never would have dreamed that the story would have devolved into anything more than just another example of Gonzales' broad failings as a leader, a lawyer and a politician. But it has. Let the investigation begin. Lord knows where it will end.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/ ... 8295.shtml

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former Chief of Staff who resigned over the scandal, testified today and put a few more nails in Gonzales' coffin. Most damning, he directly contradicted Gonzales' statement that he was not closely involved in the firings, testifying that he recalled numerous conversations that he had with Gonzales about the issue and that the final decision about which attorneys should be fired was made by Gonzales and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. He also confirmed the major role played by the White House - led by Rove - in the firings, and he confirmed also that the reason the attorneys were fired was because they did not not sufficiently abide by the administration's "priorities". In other words, they went after Republicans too hard and didn't go after Democrats hard enough.