Democrats Send Out First Round of Subpoenas
By Susan Crabtree
The Hill
Thursday 01 March 2007
A House Judiciary subcommittee approved today the first in what is expected to be an avalanche of subpoenas to Bush administration officials. They will likely explore corruption and mismanagement allegations on everything from pre-war Iraq intelligence to the mishandling of the response to Hurricane Katrina.
The first round of subpoenas concern the recent controversial firings by the Bush administration of seven U.S. attorneys, some of whom were pursuing public corruption cases against Republican members of Congress.
The House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law, chaired by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), approved subpoenas requiring four former U.S. attorneys to appear at a subcommittee hearing next Tuesday. The former U.S. attorneys include Carol Lam of California, David Iglesias of New Mexico, H.E. Cummins III of Arkansas, and John McKay of Washington state. The subcommittee approved the subpoenas by voice vote; no Republican lawmakers were present.
Tuesday’s hearing will consider a bill by Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) that would reverse a new Patriot Act provision allowing the attorney general to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation through the duration of the Bush administration.
Democrats have come to the defense of several dismissed prosecutors, in particular Lam and Cummins of Arkansas. They have noted that Lam was leading the probe of ex-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), while Cummins was removed to make room for a former aide to White House senior adviser Karl Rove. Other U.S. attorneys, including those in Nevada and Arizona, were acting on corruption charges against GOP lawmakers before their resignations were requested.
Iglesias, a New Mexico U.S. attorney, asserted at a press conference yesterday that he was fired for purely political reasons. He also charged that prior to the November elections, two federal elected officials asked him to speed up the probes of local politicians.
Democrats, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), have expressed outrage over the firings. She and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have demanded to see the attorneys’ performance evaluations.
The White House has denied that the attorneys were fired for anything other than performance-related issues. And Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), have argued that Democrats are making up a controversy where none exists.
After the vote on the subpoenas, Sanchez took exception to the White House’s assertions that they can fire the attorneys because they are "at will" employees.
There are several exceptions when an "at-will" employee cannot be fired, Sanchez asserted, such as sex or race discrimination.
"There are several public policy reasons why we don’t fire people," she said. "Are these people being [fired] because they’re doing their jobs and they’re doing them to well? Is this an ideological purge?"
She went on to stress the importance of a judiciary branch that is separate and independent from the executive branch.
"When the executive branch is interfering in the justice system - in other countries we call that corruption," she said. "It’s very troubling to me that there seems to be this undercurrent."
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) also weighed today, with a speech on the House floor.
"So this Administration either originally hired incompetent attorneys in the first place, or hired competent U.S. Attorneys, but incompetently fired them. Which is it?" he asked. "Many Americans believe these U.S. Attorneys are not being fired because they failed to go after public corruption, but because they did and were successful."
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment by press time. It has opposed a Senate bill similar to Berman’s. A senior administration official also previously told The Hill that Democrats were trying to create a scandal where there isn’t one.
"This sounds to me a little more like Democrats trying to play politics and use the S-word than it does trying to obtain substantive information," the official said.
*****************
House Panel Subpoenas Fired US Attorneys
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
The Washington Post
Friday 02 March 2007
Democrats issued their first major subpoenas yesterday since taking control of Congress, as a House subcommittee voted to compel testimony from four former U.S. attorneys who were part of a wave of firings by the Justice Department.
The Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law approved the subpoenas for former prosecutors in Arkansas, New Mexico, Seattle and San Diego - all of whom will be required to appear for testimony at a hearing Tuesday. The Senate Judiciary Committee announced plans for a similar hearing on the same day.
The moves mark the latest escalation in the battle between congressional Democrats and the Justice Department over the controversial dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys, at least five of whom were presiding over public corruption probes when they were fired.
"Are these people being removed for doing their job and for it doing it too well?" asked Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the panel, who called the subpoenas "a last resort."
The controversy, which has been simmering for two months, boiled over this week after departing prosecutor David C. Iglesias of New Mexico alleged that two unnamed lawmakers had pressured him to speed up the prosecution of Democrats before the November elections. Iglesias said he believed that complaints from the lawmakers may have led to his dismissal, an allegation the Justice Department has disputed.
The state’s top two Democrats, Rep. Tom Udall and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, and Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) have denied calling Iglesias. Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) and Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) have not responded to requests for comment over the past two days and deflected questions from the Associated Press about the allegations.
"I don’t have any comment," Domenici said. "I have no idea what he’s talking about."
Wilson referred questions "on that personnel matter" to the Justice Department.
Sanchez said any such contacts by a member of Congress would likely be in violation of House and Senate ethics rules that restrict such "ex parte communications" during ongoing criminal investigations.
Iglesias’s office was conducting a probe into allegations involving construction contracts and a prominent Democratic former state senator.
At the time of the alleged phone calls, Wilson, a close ally of Domenici’s, was in a tight reelection battle with then-state Attorney General Patricia Madrid. Wilson won by fewer than 2,000 votes.
Iglesias said yesterday that he will identify the lawmakers only if compelled by a subpoena.
"I fear retaliation," said Iglesias, a Republican and former military defense lawyer who served as a model for a character in the movie "A Few Good Men." "This is a small state and there are not too many employment opportunities, and I fear they will blacklist me."
At least four of the other U.S. attorneys were presiding over probes targeting Republican politicians at the time they were notified of their firing.
Although a separate House subcommittee has compelled testimony in a little-noticed drug inquiry, the prosecutors case marks the first major use of subpoena power by the new Democratic majority.
Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that the department has been "very forthcoming" with Congress about the dismissals and that any allegations that prosecutors were removed to interfere with investigations are "completely wrong."
Justice officials have said Iglesias and six others were fired for "performance-related" reasons and have denied that any were targeted to disrupt public corruption probes. Officials have acknowledged that an eighth prosecutor, Bud Cummins of Little Rock, was removed to make way for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove.
Cummins and former U.S. attorney John McKay of Seattle said in interviews that they told lawmakers they will not testify unless subpoenas are issued.
"I wanted it clear that I wasn’t volunteering to testify and I wasn’t trying to affirmatively stir up trouble for everybody," said Cummins, who left in December. "If they would like to hear one of the few facts I have, I’m happy to tell them."
The other former prosecutor scheduled to testify, Carol S. Lam of San Diego, did not return a call seeking comment yesterday.
No Republicans showed up for the unanimous panel vote on issuing the subpoenas. The Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, Rep. Lamar Smith (Tex.), later called the session 'political grandstanding.'
Democrats Send Out First Round of Subpoenas
Moderator: Super Moderators
-
Pennylane005
- Pirate
- Posts: 107
- Joined: 09-19-2003 02:21 PM
Re: Democrats Send Out First Round of Subpoenas
What good news! Maybe these subpoenas will cause Bush and his gang to think twice about firing Patrick Fitzgerald once the Libby case is done.
I'm looking forward to hearing the evidence from these fired US attorneys. The implications are enormous for my state of New Mexico.
I'm looking forward to hearing the evidence from these fired US attorneys. The implications are enormous for my state of New Mexico.
-
Cherry Kelly
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact:
Hmm -- wonder why the GOP didn't run a similar bunch of subpoenas when the former administration fired a bunch of atty's when they took power. How soon we seem to forget these things.
A Dem just took over in a nearby state and fired a bunch of former attorneys - guess what - its his right to do so, just as it is the right of the administration at federal level to do so.
===
Thought the DEMS were going to be doing things for the people - REAL things for the people - not tie up $$$ and time on investigation after investigation on ludicrousness. Where are all their promises to help people with important things?
Why not investigations on health care or on fixing SS or securing the borders, you know things important to the nation.
A Dem just took over in a nearby state and fired a bunch of former attorneys - guess what - its his right to do so, just as it is the right of the administration at federal level to do so.
===
Thought the DEMS were going to be doing things for the people - REAL things for the people - not tie up $$$ and time on investigation after investigation on ludicrousness. Where are all their promises to help people with important things?
Why not investigations on health care or on fixing SS or securing the borders, you know things important to the nation.
and it's about time.... -
Pennylane005
- Pirate
- Posts: 107
- Joined: 09-19-2003 02:21 PM
White House OK’d mass U.S. attorney firings
Targeted prosecutors believed not doing enough to carry out Bush's policies
WASHINGTON - The White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys late last year after senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues, White House and Justice Department officials said yesterday.
The list of prosecutors was assembled last fall, based largely on complaints from members of Congress, law enforcement officials and career Justice Department lawyers, administration officials said.
One of the complaints came from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who specifically raised concerns with the Justice Department last fall about the performance of then-U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, according to administration officials and Domenici's office
Iglesias has alleged that two unnamed New Mexico lawmakers pressured him in October to speed up the indictments of Democrats before the elections. Domenici has declined to comment on that allegation.
Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' "performance-related" problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter.
"At the end of the day, this was a decision to pick the prosecutors we felt would most effectively carry out the department's policies and priorities in the last two years," said Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.
‘That is standard operating procedure’
Officials portrayed the firings as part of a routine process, saying the White House did not play any role in identifying which U.S. attorneys should be removed or encourage the dismissals. The administration previously said that the White House counsel recommended a GOP replacement for one U.S. attorney, in Arkansas, but did not say that the White House approved the seven other firings.
"If any agency wants to make a change regarding a presidential appointee, they run that change by the White House counsel's office," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "That is standard operating procedure, and that is what happened here. The White House did not object to the Justice Department decision."
Click for related content
Discuss: What do you think about this story?
The seven prosecutors were first identified by the Justice Department's senior leadership shortly before the November elections, officials said. The final decision was supported by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, and cleared with the White House counsel's office, including deputy counsel William Kelly, they said.
Timing unusual
The firings have sparked outrage from Democrats and some Republicans in Congress as details emerge about the unusual decision to remove so many at once on Dec. 7, in the middle of the administration's term. The issue escalated this week with the allegations from Iglesias, who has said he will name the two New Mexico lawmakers who called him if he is asked under oath.
The House Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas for Iglesias and three other fired prosecutors, who are set to testify in both the House and the Senate on Tuesday. Lawmakers plan to press for answers, including what triggered the creation of the list and who else was involved.
Most of the prosecutors have said they were given no reason for their dismissals and have responded angrily to the Justice Department's contention that they were fired because of their performance. At least five of the prosecutors, including Iglesias, were presiding over public corruption investigations when they were fired, but Justice Department officials have said that those probes played no role in the dismissals.
Domenici's office confirmed yesterday that it had raised concerns with the Justice Department about Iglesias's office, particularly on immigration.
"We had very legitimate concerns expressed to us by hundreds of New Mexicans — in the media, in the legal communities and just regular citizens — about the resources that were available to the U.S. attorney," said Steve Bell, Domenici's chief of staff.
Domenici and his aides have declined to comment on whether the lawmaker called Iglesias. Any communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of ethics rules.
The fired prosecutors in San Diego and Nevada are registered independents, while the rest are generally viewed as moderate Republicans, according to administration officials and many of the fired prosecutors.
In a recent briefing with lawmakers, McNulty said one factor in the decision to create the list of U.S. attorneys was the concern raised by various members of Congress and law enforcement officials that some U.S. attorneys were not following Bush administration policies or federal sentencing rules, administration officials said.
The Justice Department received several letters dating to 2005 and signed by more than a dozen California lawmakers, mostly Republicans, raising concerns about then-U.S. Attorney Carol S. Lam's approach to prosecuting immigration cases. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democrat, also wrote Gonzales in June, saying that the "low prosecution rates have a demoralizing effect on the men and women patrolling our nation's borders."
On the job less than a year, McNulty consulted his predecessor as deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, about some of the prosecutors before approving the list, officials said. Comey, who did not return a telephone call seeking comment yesterday, praised Iglesias earlier this week as one of the department's best prosecutors.
The seven prosecutors outside Arkansas were informed about their ousters on Dec. 7, after the White House counsel's office signed off.
A few days before the firings, administration officials began the traditional process of calling lawmakers in the affected states to inform them about the decisions and to gather early input on possible successors, officials said.
Although the White House approved the firings, two administration officials said the counsel's office did not suggest replacements. But the officials said White House political affairs officials keep databases on potential job candidates that Justice Department officials could have accessed if they chose.
An administration official said White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten does not recall whether he was briefed about the firings before they occurred.
Privately, White House officials acknowledged that the administration mishandled the firings by not explaining more clearly to lawmakers that a large group was being terminated at once —which is unusual — and that the reason was the policy performance review.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17407730/
WASHINGTON - The White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys late last year after senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues, White House and Justice Department officials said yesterday.
The list of prosecutors was assembled last fall, based largely on complaints from members of Congress, law enforcement officials and career Justice Department lawyers, administration officials said.
One of the complaints came from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who specifically raised concerns with the Justice Department last fall about the performance of then-U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, according to administration officials and Domenici's office
Iglesias has alleged that two unnamed New Mexico lawmakers pressured him in October to speed up the indictments of Democrats before the elections. Domenici has declined to comment on that allegation.
Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' "performance-related" problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter.
"At the end of the day, this was a decision to pick the prosecutors we felt would most effectively carry out the department's policies and priorities in the last two years," said Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.
‘That is standard operating procedure’
Officials portrayed the firings as part of a routine process, saying the White House did not play any role in identifying which U.S. attorneys should be removed or encourage the dismissals. The administration previously said that the White House counsel recommended a GOP replacement for one U.S. attorney, in Arkansas, but did not say that the White House approved the seven other firings.
"If any agency wants to make a change regarding a presidential appointee, they run that change by the White House counsel's office," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "That is standard operating procedure, and that is what happened here. The White House did not object to the Justice Department decision."
Click for related content
Discuss: What do you think about this story?
The seven prosecutors were first identified by the Justice Department's senior leadership shortly before the November elections, officials said. The final decision was supported by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, and cleared with the White House counsel's office, including deputy counsel William Kelly, they said.
Timing unusual
The firings have sparked outrage from Democrats and some Republicans in Congress as details emerge about the unusual decision to remove so many at once on Dec. 7, in the middle of the administration's term. The issue escalated this week with the allegations from Iglesias, who has said he will name the two New Mexico lawmakers who called him if he is asked under oath.
The House Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas for Iglesias and three other fired prosecutors, who are set to testify in both the House and the Senate on Tuesday. Lawmakers plan to press for answers, including what triggered the creation of the list and who else was involved.
Most of the prosecutors have said they were given no reason for their dismissals and have responded angrily to the Justice Department's contention that they were fired because of their performance. At least five of the prosecutors, including Iglesias, were presiding over public corruption investigations when they were fired, but Justice Department officials have said that those probes played no role in the dismissals.
Domenici's office confirmed yesterday that it had raised concerns with the Justice Department about Iglesias's office, particularly on immigration.
"We had very legitimate concerns expressed to us by hundreds of New Mexicans — in the media, in the legal communities and just regular citizens — about the resources that were available to the U.S. attorney," said Steve Bell, Domenici's chief of staff.
Domenici and his aides have declined to comment on whether the lawmaker called Iglesias. Any communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of ethics rules.
The fired prosecutors in San Diego and Nevada are registered independents, while the rest are generally viewed as moderate Republicans, according to administration officials and many of the fired prosecutors.
In a recent briefing with lawmakers, McNulty said one factor in the decision to create the list of U.S. attorneys was the concern raised by various members of Congress and law enforcement officials that some U.S. attorneys were not following Bush administration policies or federal sentencing rules, administration officials said.
The Justice Department received several letters dating to 2005 and signed by more than a dozen California lawmakers, mostly Republicans, raising concerns about then-U.S. Attorney Carol S. Lam's approach to prosecuting immigration cases. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democrat, also wrote Gonzales in June, saying that the "low prosecution rates have a demoralizing effect on the men and women patrolling our nation's borders."
On the job less than a year, McNulty consulted his predecessor as deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, about some of the prosecutors before approving the list, officials said. Comey, who did not return a telephone call seeking comment yesterday, praised Iglesias earlier this week as one of the department's best prosecutors.
The seven prosecutors outside Arkansas were informed about their ousters on Dec. 7, after the White House counsel's office signed off.
A few days before the firings, administration officials began the traditional process of calling lawmakers in the affected states to inform them about the decisions and to gather early input on possible successors, officials said.
Although the White House approved the firings, two administration officials said the counsel's office did not suggest replacements. But the officials said White House political affairs officials keep databases on potential job candidates that Justice Department officials could have accessed if they chose.
An administration official said White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten does not recall whether he was briefed about the firings before they occurred.
Privately, White House officials acknowledged that the administration mishandled the firings by not explaining more clearly to lawmakers that a large group was being terminated at once —which is unusual — and that the reason was the policy performance review.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17407730/
White House backtracks in row over U.S. attorneys
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Slapped even by GOP allies, the Bush administration is beating an abrupt retreat on eight federal prosecutors it fired and then publicly pilloried.
Just hours after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dismissed the hubbub as an "overblown personnel matter," a Republican senator Thursday mused that Gonzales might soon suffer the same fate as the canned U.S. attorneys.
A short time later, Gonzales and his security detail shuttled to the Capitol for a private meeting on Democratic turf, bearing two offerings:
- President Bush would not stand in the way of a Democratic-sponsored bill that would cancel the attorney general's power to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation. Gonzales' Justice Department previously had dismissed the legislation as unreasonable.
- There would be no need for subpoenas to compel testimony by five of Gonzales' aides involved in the firings, as the Democrats had threatened. Cloistered in the stately hideaway of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, the attorney general assured those present that he would permit the aides to tell their stories.
It was a striking reversal for an administration noted for standing its ground even in the face of overwhelming opposition.
Gone were the department's biting assertions that the prosecutors were a bunch of "disgruntled employees grandstanding before Congress."
And the department no longer tried to shrug off the uproar as "an overblown personnel matter," as Gonzales had written in an opinion piece published Thursday in USA Today.
Agency officials also ceased describing majority Democrats as lawmakers who would "would rather play politics" than deal with facts.
The shift from offense to silence was so abrupt that one of Bush's chief advisers who was speaking out of town apparently missed the memo.
"My view is this is unfortunately a very big attempt by some in the Congress to make a political stink about it," presidential adviser Karl Rove said Thursday during a speech at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service.
Back in Washington, a consensus was emerging among senators of both parties, and Gonzales himself, that the firings had been botched chiefly because the prosecutors had not been told the reasons for their dismissals.
The matter snowballed -- some of those fired complained publicly, and a senior Justice Department official warned one that further complaints in the press would force the agency to defend itself, according to an e-mail made public this week.
On Tuesday, during an eight-hour marathon of congressional hearings, the Justice Department followed through. William Moschella, principle associate deputy attorney general, publicly enumerated the reasons each prosecutor was fired, one by one.
Flash forward two days, to Specter, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, reading Gonzales' USA Today column into the record. He paused.
"One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," he mused. "But these [prosecutors] who were plastered across the newspapers all across the country, they will never recover their reputations."
Two staunch White House allies, Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, lamented the damage to the prosecutors' resumes -- adding, however, that the uproar had been the result of poor execution rather than a political purge.
The prosecutors weren't the only ones whose reputations suffered. One, New Mexico's David Iglesias, said the dismissals followed calls from members of Congress -- Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, New Mexico Republicans -- concerning sensitive political corruption investigations.
Still unclear is whether Gonzales will allow his aides to speak with the Senate panel in private or at a public hearing. The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday also demanded to speak with the officials.
They are: Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Bill Mercer and Mike Battle.
Sampson is Gonzales' chief of staff, Elston is staff chief to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Mercer is associate attorney general. Goodling is Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, and Battle is the departing director of the office that oversees the 93 U.S. attorneys.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/ ... index.html
Just hours after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dismissed the hubbub as an "overblown personnel matter," a Republican senator Thursday mused that Gonzales might soon suffer the same fate as the canned U.S. attorneys.
A short time later, Gonzales and his security detail shuttled to the Capitol for a private meeting on Democratic turf, bearing two offerings:
- President Bush would not stand in the way of a Democratic-sponsored bill that would cancel the attorney general's power to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation. Gonzales' Justice Department previously had dismissed the legislation as unreasonable.
- There would be no need for subpoenas to compel testimony by five of Gonzales' aides involved in the firings, as the Democrats had threatened. Cloistered in the stately hideaway of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, the attorney general assured those present that he would permit the aides to tell their stories.
It was a striking reversal for an administration noted for standing its ground even in the face of overwhelming opposition.
Gone were the department's biting assertions that the prosecutors were a bunch of "disgruntled employees grandstanding before Congress."
And the department no longer tried to shrug off the uproar as "an overblown personnel matter," as Gonzales had written in an opinion piece published Thursday in USA Today.
Agency officials also ceased describing majority Democrats as lawmakers who would "would rather play politics" than deal with facts.
The shift from offense to silence was so abrupt that one of Bush's chief advisers who was speaking out of town apparently missed the memo.
"My view is this is unfortunately a very big attempt by some in the Congress to make a political stink about it," presidential adviser Karl Rove said Thursday during a speech at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service.
Back in Washington, a consensus was emerging among senators of both parties, and Gonzales himself, that the firings had been botched chiefly because the prosecutors had not been told the reasons for their dismissals.
The matter snowballed -- some of those fired complained publicly, and a senior Justice Department official warned one that further complaints in the press would force the agency to defend itself, according to an e-mail made public this week.
On Tuesday, during an eight-hour marathon of congressional hearings, the Justice Department followed through. William Moschella, principle associate deputy attorney general, publicly enumerated the reasons each prosecutor was fired, one by one.
Flash forward two days, to Specter, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, reading Gonzales' USA Today column into the record. He paused.
"One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," he mused. "But these [prosecutors] who were plastered across the newspapers all across the country, they will never recover their reputations."
Two staunch White House allies, Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, lamented the damage to the prosecutors' resumes -- adding, however, that the uproar had been the result of poor execution rather than a political purge.
The prosecutors weren't the only ones whose reputations suffered. One, New Mexico's David Iglesias, said the dismissals followed calls from members of Congress -- Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, New Mexico Republicans -- concerning sensitive political corruption investigations.
Still unclear is whether Gonzales will allow his aides to speak with the Senate panel in private or at a public hearing. The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday also demanded to speak with the officials.
They are: Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Bill Mercer and Mike Battle.
Sampson is Gonzales' chief of staff, Elston is staff chief to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Mercer is associate attorney general. Goodling is Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, and Battle is the departing director of the office that oversees the 93 U.S. attorneys.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/ ... index.html