Content deleted Content added
CalebNoble (talk | contribs) →Reactions and congressional investigation: rm questionable interpretation of a Gonzales admission |
|||
Line 1:
{{Short description|George W. Bush administration controversy}}
{{Redirect|Attorneygate|the dismissal of U.S. attorneys in 2017| 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys}}
{{2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy}}
{{George W. Bush series}}
On December 7, 2006, the [[Presidency of George W. Bush|George W. Bush administration]]'s [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] ordered the midterm dismissal of seven [[United States Attorney|United States attorneys]].<ref name="WP-Eggen-2007-03-14">{{cite news | first1=Dan | last1=Eggen |first2=Paul |last2=Kane | title=Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made': But Attorney General Defends Firings of Eight U.S. Attorneys | date=March 14, 2007 | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300776_pf.html | newspaper =[[The Washington Post]] | pages =A01 | access-date = May 28, 2007}}</ref> Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the [[Executive Office of the President|White House]] were using the U.S. attorney positions for political advantage. The allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal for failing to prosecute claims of election fraud, as retribution for prosecuting Republican politicians, or for failing to pursue adult obscenity prosecutions.<ref name=Bowermaster>
{{cite news |title=Charges may result from firings, say two former U.S. attorneys |first=David |last=Bowermaster |newspaper=[[The Seattle Times]] |date=May 9, 2007 | url=https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/charges-may-result-from-firings-say-two-former-us-attorneys//|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221130105427/https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/charges-may-result-from-firings-say-two-former-us-attorneys// | access-date=May 16, 2007|archive-date=2022-11-30 }}
</ref><ref name = "WashingtonPost-20070513">
{{cite news |title=Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals |first1=Dan |last1=Eggen |first2=Amy |last2=Goldstein |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=May 14, 2007|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301106.html |access-date=May 18, 2007}}
</ref> The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees under provisions in the 2005 [[Patriot Act|USA PATRIOT Act]] reauthorization. <ref name=WP-Eggen-2007-03-14/><ref name="WP-Graphic-2007-03-06">{{cite news | title=Fired U.S. Attorneys | date=March 6, 2007| url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/03/06/GR2007030600062.html | newspaper =[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref><ref name="CBS-Public-Eye-2007-03-14">{{cite news | first=Brian | last=Montopoli | title=So Is This U.S. Attorney Purge Unprecedented Or Not? | date=March 14, 2007 | work=[[CBS News]] | url =http://www.cbsnews.com/news/so-is-this-us-attorney-purge-unprecedented-or-not/ <!-- | work =[[Public Eye]] --> | access-date = May 29, 2007}}</ref><ref name="Boston-Globe-AP-Jordan-2007-09-15">
{{cite news | first= Lara Jakes | last= Jordan | agency= [[Associated Press]] | title= Attorney general bids farewell to Justice: Praises work of department | date= September 15, 2007| url = http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/15/attorney_general_bids_farewell_to_justice/ | work = [[The Boston Globe]] | access-date = September 19, 2007}}</ref>
A subsequent report by the [[Justice Department Inspector General]] in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed", and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".<ref name="USDOJ-IG">{{cite web|url=https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0809a/final.pdf|title=An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006|pages=355–358|publisher=DOJ Inspector General|access-date=2011-04-17|archive-date=2020-03-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200302142947/https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0809a/final.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> In July 2010, the Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining the firing was inappropriately political but not criminal, observing that "evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of [[David Iglesias (attorney)|David Iglesias]]. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."<ref name="fox-no-charges">{{cite news|title=Justice Dept. Opts Not to File Charges for Bush-Era U.S. Attorney Firings|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-dept-opts-not-to-file-charges-for-bush-era-u-s-attorney-firings|website=[[Fox News]]|agency=[[Associated Press]]|date=July 21, 2010}}</ref>
==Issues in brief==
By tradition, all U.S. attorneys are asked to resign at the start of a new administration. The new President may elect to keep or remove any U.S. attorney. They are traditionally replaced, collectively, only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. attorneys hold a political office, in which the president nominates candidates to office, the Senate confirms and, consequently, they serve at the pleasure of the president. When a new president is from a different political party, typically almost all of the resignations are eventually accepted<ref name=doj20010314>
{{cite press release |title= White House and Justice Department begin U.S. Attorney transition
|publisher=Office of the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice |date=March 14, 2001 |url=https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm}}
</ref> and the positions are then filled by newly confirmed appointees, typically from the new president's party.<ref name="WP-Discuss-Gerson-2007-03-14">
{{cite news | first=Stuart M. | last=Gerson | title=Inside the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys Controversy | date=March 14, 2007 | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html | access-date = 2007-05-29 }}
</ref><ref name=McClatchy20070313>{{cite news | title=Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys| publisher=[[McClatchy Newspapers]] |via=realcities.com |url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16897325.htm | date=March 13, 2007}}</ref> While U.S. attorneys are political appointees, however, it is essential to their effectiveness that they are politically impartial in deciding which cases to prosecute and in arguing those cases before judges and juries with diverse views.<ref name="NLJ-Coyle-2007-04-27">{{cite magazine | author=Marcia Coyle | url=https://www.law.com/almID/900005554868/ | title= Scandal Over U.S. Attorneys' Firing Could Cloud Other Cases | magazine =[[The National Law Journal]] | date =2007-04-27}}</ref>
Some U.S. senators were concerned about a provision in the 2006 re-authorization of the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] that eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of U.S. attorneys made by the [[United States attorney general]] to fill vacancies. The revised USA PATRIOT Act permitted the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without a term limit in office, and avoid a confirming vote by the Senate. The change in the law undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate and gave the attorney general greater appointment powers than the president, since the president's U.S. attorney appointees are required to be confirmed by the Senate and those of the attorney general did not require confirmation.<ref>{{cite news|author1=Marisa Taylor |author2=Greg Gordon |url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/greg_gordon/story/15610.html |title=New U.S. attorneys come from Bush's inner circle |publisher=[[McClatchy Newspapers]] |date=2007-01-26 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001820/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/greg_gordon/story/15610.html |archive-date=September 27, 2007 }}</ref>
The Senate was concerned that in dismissing the seven U.S. attorneys which had been confirmed, the administration planned to fill the vacancies with its own choices, bypassing Senate confirmation and the traditional consultation with senators in the selection process. Congress rescinded this provision on June 14, 2007, and President Bush promptly signed the bill into law.<ref name="Help Wanted">
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | title=In U.S. Attorney's Offices, Help Wanted: Justice Dept. Seeking Replacements for Departing Temporary Prosecutors | date=June 17, 2007 | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/16/AR2007061601080.html?nav=rss_politics | newspaper =[[The Washington Post]] | pages =A04 | access-date =June 17, 2007}}
</ref>
===Administration rationale unclear===
{{see also|2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys#Inspector General Report and special prosecutor|l1=Inspector General Report and special prosecutor|Carol Lam|Rick Renzi|Paul K. Charlton}}
The reasons for the dismissal of each individual U.S. attorney were unclear. Two suggested motivations were that the administration wanted to make room for U.S. attorneys who would be more sympathetic to the administration's political agenda, and the administration wanted to advance the careers of promising conservatives.<ref name=Bowermaster/><ref name=JaneAnnMorrison>{{cite news|newspaper=[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]] |url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Jan-18-Thu-2007/news/12044953.html |date=January 18, 2007 |first=Jane Ann |last=Morrison |title=Bush administration's ouster of U.S. attorneys an insulting injustice |access-date=April 16, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930225154/http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Jan-18-Thu-2007/news/12044953.html |archive-date=September 30, 2007 }}</ref><ref name=Taylor-Gordon20070126>{{cite news|date=2007-01-26 |title=Gonzales appoints political loyalists into vacant U.S. attorneys slots |first1=Marisa |last1=Taylor |first2=Greg |last2=Gordon |publisher=[[McClatchy Newspapers]] |url=http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16555903.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070325194003/http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16555903.htm |archive-date=March 25, 2007 }}</ref>
Critics said that the attorneys were fired for failing to prosecute [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrat]]ic politicians, for failing to prosecute claims of election fraud, as retribution for prosecuting [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] politicians, or for failing to pursue adult obscenity prosecutions.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.salon.com/2007/04/19/doj_obscenity/ | date=April 19, 2007 | first=Mark |last=Follman | title=The U.S. attorneys scandal gets dirty | work=[[Salon.com]] | access-date=2009-07-03}}</ref>
The administration and its supporters said that the attorneys were dismissed for job-performance reasons "related to policy, priorities and management", and that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.<ref name="Gonzales-03-06-07">{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-07 |url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070307/oppose07.art.htm |title=They lost my confidence: Attorneys' dismissals were related to performance, not to politics |first=Alberto R. |last=Gonzales |authorlink=Alberto Gonzales |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |date=March 7, 2007 |page=A10}}</ref> However, at least six attorneys had recently received positive evaluations of their performance from the Department of Justice.<ref>{{cite news |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/washington/25lawyers.html |date=February 25, 2007 | first=David |last=Johnston |title=Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Praised in Evaluations | access-date=January 26, 2009}}</ref> In September 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General's investigation concluded that the dismissals were politically motivated and improper.<ref name="USDOJ-IG"/>
The [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush administration]] issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.<ref name="NYT-Stolberg-2007-03-17">
{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-17 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/washington/17assess.html?ref=washington
|title=With Shifting Explanations, White House Adds to Storm|first=Sheryl Gay |last=Stolberg |authorlink=Sheryl Gay Stolberg |date=March 17, 2007 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-17 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Congress-Prosecutors.html |title=Republican Support for Gonzales Erodes|agency=Associated Press |work=The New York Times |date=March 17, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-17 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031601046.html|title=Accounts of Prosecutors' Dismissals Keep Shifting|author=Dan Eggen|newspaper=The Washington Post |page=A1|date=March 17, 2007}}</ref> The origin and evolution of the list of attorneys to be dismissed remained unclear.<ref name="WP-Senate-Judiciary-Transcript-Gonzales-2007-04-19">{{cite news | agency = Congressional Quarterly Transcript Service | title=Gonzales Testifies Before Senate Panel | date=April 19, 2007 | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902035.html| newspaper =[[The Washington Post]] | access-date = June 8, 2007}}</ref><ref name="WP-AP-Jordan-2007-05-15">{{cite news| first= Lara Jakes | last= Jordan | agency= [[Associated Press]] | title= Gonzales: Deputy Was Pointman on Firings | date= May 15, 2007| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500755.html | newspaper = [[The Washington Post]] | access-date = June 7, 2007}}</ref><ref name="Salon-Scherer-McNulty-2007-05-23">{{cite news | first=Michael | last=Scherer | title=McNulty hits back at Goodling | date=2007-05-23 | publisher=Salon.com | url=https://www.salon.com/2007/05/23/mcnulty_response/ | work=Salon | access-date=2007-05-25 | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121020164237/http://www.salon.com/2007/05/23/mcnulty_response/ | archive-date=October 20, 2012 }}</ref><ref name="WP-AP-Jordan-2007-05-29">{{cite news| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901220.html | title = Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales on firings | first = Lara Jakes | last = Jordan | author2 = (Associated Press) | newspaper = The Washington Post | date = 2007-03-29 | access-date = 2007-05-27 }}</ref>
In response to the Inspector General's report, in September 2008 Attorney General [[Michael Mukasey]] appointed Acting [[United States Attorney]] for the [[United States District Court for the District of Connecticut|District of Connecticut]], [[Nora Dannehy]] as special prosecutor to determine if administration officials had perjured themselves in testimony to Congress.<ref name="IHT-09-29-2008">{{cite news|last=Lichtblau |first=Eric |url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/29/america/justice.php |title=U.S. appoints special prosecutor |newspaper=International Herald Tribune |date=2008-09-29 |access-date=2011-04-17}}</ref> Her investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with perjury.<ref name="fox-no-charges"/>
===Politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice===
Attorney General Gonzales, in a confidential memorandum dated March 1, 2006, delegated authority to senior DOJ staff [[Monica Goodling]] and [[Kyle Sampson]] to hire and dismiss political appointees and some civil service positions.
On May 2, 2007, the Department of Justice announced two separate investigations into hirings conducted by Goodling: one by the department's [[Inspector General]], and a second by the [[Office of Professional Responsibility]].<ref name="NYT-Lipton-2007-05-03"/>
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, Goodling stated that she had "crossed the line" and broken civil service laws regulating hiring for civil service positions, and had improperly weighed political factors in assessing applicants.<ref name="NYT-Stout-2007-05-23">{{cite news | first=David | last=Stout | title=Ex-Gonzales Aide Testifies, 'I Crossed the Line' | date=2007-05-23 | url =https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/washington/23cnd-monica.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin | work =The New York Times | access-date = 2007-05-23 }}</ref>
According to a January 2009 Justice Department report, investigators found that [[Bradley Schlozman]], as interim head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, "favored applicants with conservative political or ideological affiliations and disfavored applicants with civil rights or human rights experience whom he considered to be overly liberal". The positions under consideration were not political, but career, for which the political and ideological views of candidates are not to be considered, according to federal law and guidelines.<ref>{{cite news | first=Theresa | last=Cook | title=Report Raps Bradley Schlozman, Former Justice Department Official, for Political Bias | date=2009-01-13 | url =https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/DOJ/story?id=6637861 | work =ABC News | access-date = 2009-02-09 }}
</ref>
In a letter of May 30, 2007, to the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the [[United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General]] and Counsel for the [[Office of Professional Responsibility]] confirmed that they were expanding their investigation beyond "the removals of United States Attorneys" to include "DOJ hiring and personnel decisions" by Goodling and other Justice Department employees.<ref name="WaPo-Eggen-2007-05-30">{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | title=Justice Dept. Widens Firings Probe | date=2007-05-30 | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/30/AR2007053001499.html | newspaper =The Washington Post| access-date = 2007-05-30 }}
</ref>
===Dismissed attorneys and elections===
{{See also|Pete Domenici|Heather Wilson|Bradley Schlozman}}
The controversy surrounding the U.S. attorneys dismissals was often linked to elections or voter-fraud issues. Allegations were that some of the U.S. attorneys were dismissed for failing to instigate investigations damaging to Democratic politicians, or for failing to more aggressively pursue voter-fraud cases.<ref name = "WashingtonPost-20070513"/><ref>{{cite news |title=No evidence of election crime, former U.S. attorney says |first=Richard |last=Roesler|publisher=The Spokesman Review |date=2007-05-20 |url=http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=9951 |access-date=2007-05-26}}</ref> Such allegations were made by some of the dismissed U.S. attorneys themselves to suggest reasons they may have been dismissed.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper = [[The Dallas Morning News]] | url = http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/030107dnnatattorney.398bb40.html | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070530041944/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/030107dnnatattorney.398bb40.html | archive-date = 2007-05-30 |title = Fired U.S. attorney alleges political pressure |date = 2007-02-28 |access-date = 2007-05-26}}</ref>
The background to the allegations is the recent tendency for elections in parts of the United States to be very close; an election outcome can be affected by an announced investigation of a politician. It is explicit policy of the Department of Justice to avoid bringing voter-related cases during an election for this reason.<ref>
{{cite news |title=Justice Department reportedly bent rules on voter fraud charges|first=Richard |last=Serrano |newspaper= Los Angeles Times|date=2007-06-06 |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-jun-06-na-usattys6-story.html |access-date=2009-01-31}}</ref> In September 2008, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice concluded that some of the dismissals were motivated by the refusal of some of the U.S. attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases during the 2006 election cycle.<ref name="USDOJ-IG" />
==Fallout==
By mid-September 2007, nine senior staff of the Department of Justice associated with the controversy had resigned.<ref name="WPost-Eggen-2007-09-19"/><ref name="Jordan">{{cite news |title= Official Close to Attorney Firings Quits |first = Lara Jakes |last = Jordan |date=June 15, 2007 |newspaper= Los Angeles Times}}</ref><ref name="WP-Eggen-2007-06-23">
{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen | title=Third-in-Command at Justice Dept. Resigns: Mercer to Leave Washington Job but Keep U.S. Attorney's Position in Montana | date= June 23, 2007 | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201291.html?nav=rss_print/asection | newspaper =The Washington Post | pages =A04 | access-date = 2007-06-25 }}
</ref><ref name="McClatchy-Gordon-2007-08-22">
{{cite news
|first=Greg
|last=Gordon
|title=Justice Department lawyer accused of partisanship resigns
|date=2007-08-22
|publisher=McClatchy Newspapers
|url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19143.html
|work=McClatchy Washington Bureau
|access-date=2007-08-28
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001814/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19143.html
|archive-date=2007-09-27
}}
</ref> The most prominent resignations include:
[[Image:Alberto Gonzales - official DoJ photograph.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Alberto Gonzales]]]]
:* Attorney General [[Alberto Gonzales]]<ref name="NYTimes-Nizza-2007-08-27">
{{cite news | first=Mike | last=Nizza | title=Gonzales, a Surprisingly Unexpected Resignation | date=2007-08-27 | url =http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/embattled-attorney-general-to-resign/ | newspaper=The New York Times | access-date = 2007-08-27 }}</ref><ref name="NY Times-Myers-2007-08-27">{{cite news | first=Steven Lee | last=Meyers | title=Embattled Attorney General Resigns | date=2007-08-27 | url =https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/washington/27cnd-gonzales.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1188223973-qjF01bvquBXoj3coe4wFvg | work =The New York Times | access-date = 2007-08-27 }}</ref><ref name="NY Times-Phillips-2007-08-27">{{cite news | first=Kate | last=Phillips | title=Gonzales Is Resigning | date=2007-08-27 | url =http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/gonzales-is-resigning/ | work =The New York Times | access-date = 2007-08-27 }}</ref>
:* [[United States Deputy Attorney General|Deputy Attorney General]] [[Paul McNulty]];
:* Acting [[United States Associate Attorney General|Associate Attorney General]] [[William W. Mercer]] resigned from the ''acting'' office prior to Senate confirmation hearings for the same position, and returned to his post as U.S. Attorney for Montana (he held dual positions);
:* [[Chief of staff]] for the Attorney General [[Kyle Sampson]]
:* Chief of Staff for the Deputy Attorney General [[Michael Elston]];
:* Director of the [[Executive Office for United States Attorneys]] (EOUSA) [[Michael A. Battle (attorney)|Michael A. Battle]];
:* the subsequently appointed Director to the EOUSA, [[Bradley Schlozman]], also the former acting Assistant Attorney General for the [[United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division|Civil Rights Division]];
:* the Department of Justice's White House Liaison [[Monica Goodling]]
In June 2008, a grand jury was empaneled to consider criminal indictments against officials involved in the firings. The grand jury was presented evidence from ongoing investigations at the Department of Justice Inspector General's office and at the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility.<ref name="NYT-Lichtblau-2008-06-17">{{cite news | first= Eric | last= Lichtblau | title= Grand Jury Said to Look at Attorneys' Dismissals | date= 2008-06-17 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17attorneys.html?ref=washington | work = The New York Times | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20220407051947/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17attorneys.html?ref=washington | access-date = 2008-06-19 | archive-date= 2022-04-07 }}</ref>
===Inspector General Report and special prosecutor===
On September 29, 2008 the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) released a report on the matter that found most of the firings were politically motivated and improper. The next day Attorney General [[Michael Mukasey]] appointed [[Nora Dannehy]] as special prosecutor to decide whether criminal charges should be brought against Gonzales and other officials involved in the firings.<ref name="IHT-09-29-2008" /> The IG's report contained "substantial evidence" that party politics drove a number of the firings, and IG [[Glenn Fine]] said in a statement that Gonzales had "abdicated his responsibility to safeguard the integrity and independence of the department."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/v-print/story/53255.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120903151234/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/v-print/story/53255.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=2012-09-03 |title=Prosecutor to probe role of politics in attorney firings |publisher=Mcclatchydc.com |access-date=2011-04-17 }}</ref> The report itself stopped short of resolving questions about higher White House involvement in the matter, because of what it said were the refusal to cooperate of a number of key players, among them [[Karl Rove]], Senator [[Pete Domenici]] and [[Harriet Miers]] and because the White House refused to hand over its documents related to the firings.<ref>{{cite web|date=September 2006|title=An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006|url=https://www.justice.gov/opr/page/file/1206601/download|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-27|publisher=DOJ Inspector General|pages=356–7|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201004112805/https://www.justice.gov/opr/page/file/1206601/download |archive-date=2020-10-04 }}</ref>
On July 21, 2010, Dannehy concluded that "there was insufficient evidence to establish that persons knowingly made material false statements to [the Office of Inspector General] or Congress or corruptly endeavored to obstruct justice"<ref>{{cite news | title=Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich | author=Weich | page=5| url=http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/conyers.dannehy.ola.resp.pdf}}</ref> and that no criminal charges would be filed against Sampson or Gonzales.
==Replacement of the U.S. attorneys==
[[Image:HarrietMiers.jpg|thumb|upright|Harriet Miers]]
[[Image:Karl Rove.jpg|thumb|upright|Karl Rove]]
===Initial planning===
On January 6, 2005, Colin Newman, an assistant in the White House counsels office, wrote to David Leitch stating, "[[Karl Rove]] stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. 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.'". The email was then forwarded to Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.<ref name="Rove2005-2nd">{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-13|author1=David Johnston |author2=Eric Lipton |date=March 16, 2007 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/world/americas/16iht-rove.4930290.html?_r=1
|title=Rove discussed firing U.S. attorneys earlier than he indicated, e-mails show |work=The New York Times}}</ref><ref name="Rove2005">{{cite news | author=Jan Crawford Greenberg | url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1 | title=E-Mails Show Rove's Role in U.S. Attorney Firings | work =[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] | date =2007-03-15}}</ref>
In reply, Sampson, then Department of Justice counsel to Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]], wrote that it would be "weird to ask them to leave before completing at least a 4-year term", that they "would like to replace 15–20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys" and that the rest "are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc."<ref name="Rove2005"/>
In March 2005, Sampson
<blockquote>came up with a checklist. He rated each of the U.S. Attorneys with criteria that appeared to value political allegiance as much as job performance. He recommended retaining 'strong U.S. Attorneys who have ... exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.' He suggested 'removing weak U.S. Attorneys who have ... chafed against Administration initiatives'.<ref name="LAtimes031407">
{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-mar-14-na-emails14-story.html | title=E-mails detail White House plans to oust U.S. attorneys | newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date= 2007-03-14 | first=Richard A. | last= Serrano | access-date = 2007-05-21}}</ref></blockquote>
Sampson wrote in January 2006 to Miers that he recommended that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. attorneys, and that by limiting the number of attorneys "targeted for removal and replacement" it would "mitigat[e] the shock to the system that would result from an across-the-board firing".<ref name="Eggen-Solomon20070313">{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-13|author=Eggen, Dan |author2=John Solomon |date=March 13, 2007 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html|title=Firings Had Genesis in White House Ex-Counsel Miers First Suggested Dismissing Prosecutors 2 Years Ago, Documents Show |newspaper=The Washington Post|page=Page A01}}</ref>
On February 12, 2006, [[Monica Goodling]] sent a spreadsheet of each U.S. attorney's political activities and memberships in conservative political groups to senior Administration officials, with the comment "This is the chart that the AG requested".<ref name="Jordan20070413">{{cite news|access-date=2007-05-21 |author=Jordan, Laura Jakes |date=April 13, 2007 |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3039829 |publisher=ABC News (AP) |title=Agency weighed prosecutors' politics |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080616084406/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3039829 |archive-date=June 16, 2008 }}</ref>
Sampson strongly urged using changes to the law governing U.S. attorney appointments to bypass Congressional confirmation, writing in a September 17, 2006 memo to Miers:
<blockquote>I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed ... It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready to roll immediately ... I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments ... [By avoiding Senate confirmation] we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House.<ref name="Eggen-Solomon20070313"/></blockquote>
===Implementation: the U.S. attorney removal list===
In October 2006, President [[George W. Bush]] told Alberto Gonzales that he had received complaints that some U.S. attorneys had not pursued certain voter-fraud investigations. The complaints came from Republican officials, who demanded fraud investigations into a number of Democratic campaigns.<ref name="Eggen-Solomon20070313"/>
According to ''[[Newsweek]]'', "Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff, developed the list of eight prosecutors to be fired last October—with input from the White House".<ref>{{cite magazine | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/page/2/ | title=Fuel to the Firings | magazine=[[Newsweek]] | date=2007-03-19| first=Michael | last=Isikoff | access-date = 2007-03-12 | url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070314183909/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/page/2/ <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = 2007-03-14}}</ref>
On November 27, 2006, Gonzales met with senior advisers to discuss the plan.<ref name="NYtimes0324">{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/washington/24attorney.html | title=Gonzales Met With Advisors on Ouster Plan| newspaper=The New York Times | date= 2007-03-24 | first=David and Eric Lipton | last= Johnston | access-date = 2007-03-24}}</ref> The Justice Department did not receive White House approval for the firings until early December. As late as December 2, Sampson had written to [[Michael Elston]] that the Justice Department was "[s]till waiting for green light from White House" with regards to the firing. Deputy White House Counsel [[William K. Kelley]] responded on December 4, 2006, saying, "We're a go for the U.S. Atty plan ... [the White House office of legislative affairs], political, communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."<ref name=LaraJakesJordan>{{cite news|author=Lara Jakes Jordan |agency=Associated Press |title=Gonzales: Prosecutors firings mishandled |date=March 13, 2007}}</ref>
On December 7, 2006, Justice Department official [[Michael A. Battle (attorney)|Michael A. Battle]] informed seven U.S. attorneys that they were being dismissed.<ref name=Hartley20070321>{{cite magazine|first=Allegra |last=Hartley |title=Timeline: How the U.S. Attorneys Were Fired |magazine=U.S. News & World Report |date=2007-03-21 |access-date=2007-03-26 |url=https://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070321/21attorneys-timeline.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070528160426/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070321/21attorneys-timeline.htm |archive-date=May 28, 2007 }}</ref>
Although seven attorneys were dismissed on December 7, 2006, subsequent disclosures show that three or more additional attorneys were dismissed under similar circumstances between 2005 and 2006.<ref name="boston">{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/06/list_of_8_dismissed_us_prosecutors/ |title=List of 8 dismissed U.S. prosecutors |date=March 6, 2007 |agency=Associated Press }}</ref> U.S. Attorney [[Bud Cummins]] in Arkansas had been informed in June 2006 that he was to be replaced, and he resigned, effective December 20, 2006, several days after the public announcement of the appointment of his successor [[Timothy Griffin]].<ref>
[http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Chair-Cummins070430.pdf Q & A from Committee for Bud Cummins] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080626074157/http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Chair-Cummins070430.pdf |date=June 26, 2008 }} (no date). ''United States House Committee on the Judiciary'' Retrieved May 18, 2007. (Written responses by Bud Cummins to committee interrogatories, post-hearing.)</ref>
{{Dismissed attorneys table}}
David Iglesias (R) believes he was removed from office at the behest of two New Mexico Republican congressmen when he refused to prosecute state Democratic senators before the November 2006 election.<ref>Taylor, Marisa. "Political interference is alleged in the sacking of a U.S. attorney", McClatchy Newspapers - February 28, 2007</ref>
[[Kevin V. Ryan|Kevin Ryan]] (R) Though described as "loyal to the Bush administration," he was allegedly fired for the possible controversy that negative job performance evaluations might cause if they were released.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Dolan |first1=Maura |title=Bush loyalist was added to purge list late |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-bush-loyalist/147483996/ |work=Los Angeles Times |date=March 22, 2007 |pages=B1, B9}} [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-us-attorney/147484048/ story continued on page B9]</ref>
[[John McKay (attorney)|John McKay]] (R) Was given a positive job evaluation 7 months before he was fired. After a close Washington governor's race resulted in a Democratic victory, local Republicans criticized McKay for not investigating allegations of voter fraud.<ref>David Bowermaster (February 7, 2007). "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003562075_mckay08m.html McKay got good review 7 months before ouster] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070516171505/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003562075_mckay08m.html |date=2007-05-16 }}," ''Seattle Times''</ref>
[[Paul K. Charlton]] (R) U.S. Attorney for Arizona, was given a positive job performance evaluation before he was dismissed. He may have been fired because he had started a corruption investigation into Representative [[Rick Renzi]] (R-AZ).<ref>Blumenthal, Max (2007-03-20). "[https://web.archive.org/web/20070605084315/https://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/blumenthal The Porn Plot Against Prosecutors]", ''The Nation'', Retrieved 2007-03-21.</ref> In September 2006, it became clear that Charlton had launched an investigation of Renzi over a land-swap deal. Sampson subsequently included Charlton on a list of U.S. attorneys "we now should consider pushing out."<ref>{{cite news | first = Ron | last = Hutcheson | title = Emails detail plans for firing U.S. attorneys | publisher = McClatchy Newspapers | date = 2007-03-13 | access-date = 2007-03-14 | url = http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16897082.htm }}</ref> Sampson made the comment in a Sept. 13, 2006, letter to then-White House Counsel [[Harriet Miers]].<ref name="Blumenthal">{{cite magazine|url=https://www.thenation.com/article/porn-plot-against-prosecutors/|title=The Porn Plot Against Prosecutors|first1=Max|last1=Blumenthal|access-date=2019-03-22|date=2007-03-20|magazine=[[The Nation]]|archive-date=2019-03-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322233518/https://www.thenation.com/article/porn-plot-against-prosecutors/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
[[Carol Lam]] (R) U.S. Attorney for California, oversaw the investigation and conviction of Rep. [[Randy "Duke" Cunningham]] (R-CA) for corruption in military contracting.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20070121/news_1n21lam.html|title=Lam's Legacy|date=January 21, 2007|work=San Diego Union-Tribune|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181115193512/http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20070121/news_1n21lam.html |access-date=1 February 2017|archive-date=2018-11-15 }}</ref> Congressman [[Darrell Issa]] complained that Lam was not prosecuting illegal border crossings aggressively enough.<ref>{{cite news | title=Letter from Justice Department to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Regarding Performance of Carol Lam | author=U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs| publisher=ThinkProgress.org | date= 2007-03-06 | url=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/doj-lam/?resultpage=1&| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070323090648/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/doj-lam/?resultpage=1&| url-status=dead| archive-date=2007-03-23}}</ref> On December 7, 2006, [[Michael A. Battle (attorney)|Michael A. Battle]], Director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, called Lam and notified her that she must resign no later than January 31, 2007. Battle instructed Lam to explain that she had decided to pursue other opportunities.<ref name="judiciary.house.gov">{{Cite web |url=http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Chair-Lam070430.pdf |title=Lam's responses to questions from House Judiciary Committee |access-date=2019-03-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080626074215/http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Chair-Lam070430.pdf |archive-date=2008-06-26 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Battle insisted that Lam had to depart in weeks, not months, and these orders were "coming from the very highest levels of government". Lam submitted her resignation January 16, 2007, effective February 15.<ref name="judiciary.house.gov"/>
[[Daniel Bogden]] (R) U.S. Attorney for Nevada was investigating Nevada Governor [[Jim Gibbons (U.S. politician)|Jim Gibbons]] (R) for bribery, when he was fired without explanation after seven years because of a vague sense that a "stronger leader" was needed. His loyalty to President Bush was questioned by Sampson.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150605054230/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14justice.html?pagewanted=all 'Loyalty' to Bush and Gonzales Was Factor in Prosecutors' Firings, E-Mail Shows]</ref><ref name="theatlantic.com">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/a-us-attorneys-story/307416/|title = A U.S. Attorney's Story|website = [[The Atlantic]]|date = 20 April 2009| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230321233348/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/a-us-attorneys-story/307416/ | archive-date=2023-03-21 }}</ref><ref name="NY Times">Steinhauer, Jennifer. (2007-05-30) [http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30914F93F540C738FDDAC0894DF404482&showabstract=1 STATEHOUSE JOURNAL – A Rocky Start for Nevada's Chief – NYTimes.com]. Select.nytimes.com. Retrieved on 2011-01-09.</ref><ref name="lvrj.com">[https://web.archive.org/web/20071224195722/http://www.lvrj.com/news/8847257.html Claims against Gibbons revealed – News – ReviewJournal.com]. Lvrj.com. Retrieved on 2011-01-09.</ref>
[[Margaret Chiara]] (R) U.S. Attorney for Michigan was given a positive job evaluation in 2005, and told she was being removed to "make way" for another individual.<ref>Lipton, Eric (March 23, 2007). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/washington/23chiara.html?ref=washington&pagewanted=print U.S. Attorney in Michigan Disputes Reason for Removal]", ''The New York Times'', Retrieved 2007-03-23.</ref> On March 23, 2007, ''The New York Times'' reported that Chiara was told by a senior Justice Department official that she was being removed to make way for a new attorney that the Bush administration wanted to groom. "To say it was about politics may not be pleasant, but at least it is truthful," Chiara said. "Poor performance was not a truthful explanation."<ref name=Lipton20070323>{{cite web|access-date=2007-03-23
|author=Lipton, Eric |work=The New York Times |date=March 23, 2007 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/washington/23chiara.html?ref=washington&pagewanted=print
|title=U.S. Attorney in Michigan Disputes Reason for Removal}}</ref><ref name=AP-resign>{{cite news | title=Michigan U.S. attorney announces resignation | date=March 27, 2007 | publisher=AP | url=http://www.buffalolawjournal.com/article_view.asp?IDNO=31200719 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070312085425/http://www.buffalolawjournal.com/article_view.asp?IDNO=31200719 | archive-date=March 12, 2007 }}</ref>
[[Todd Graves (attorney)|Todd Graves]] (R) had been pressed to bring a civil suit against Missouri Secretary of State [[Robin Carnahan]] (D) for allegedly failing to crack down on voting fraud.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070531nj1.htm |title=The Scales Of Justice |publisher=NATIONAL JOURNAL - News.nationaljournal.com |date=2007-05-31 |access-date=2011-04-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070604164859/http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070531nj1.htm |archive-date=2007-06-04 }}</ref> In January 2006, Graves was asked to step down from his job by [[Michael A. Battle (attorney)|Michael A. Battle]], then Director of the Justice department's [[Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys]].<ref name="goldsteineggen">Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR2007050902718.html?hpid=topnews "Number of Fired Prosecutors Grows: Dismissals Began Earlier Than Justice Dept. Has Said"]. washingtonpost.com, May 10, 2007; accessed April 24, 2015/</ref><ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mow/news2006/graves.resign.pdf Todd Graves steps down as U.S. Attorney] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070809015125/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mow/news2006/graves.resign.pdf |date=2007-08-09 }}, usdoj.gov, March 10, 2006; retrieved May 8, 2007.</ref> Graves had clashed with the Department of Justice's civil rights division over a federal lawsuit involving Missouri's voter rolls. The department was pushing for a lawsuit against Missouri, accusing the state of failing to eliminate ineligible people from voter rolls. Graves refused to sign off on the lawsuit, which was subsequently authorized by Graves' successor, [[Bradley Schlozman]] (R).<ref name="goldsteineggen"/><ref>Greg Gordon (May 4, 2007). [http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/94097.html "GOP sought to suppress votes in Missouri, critics say: Missouri is among states where alleged efforts to dampen Democratic turnout were focused"], kansascity.com; accessed April 24, 2015.</ref> [[Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]] filed a complaint against Bond over his role in ousting Graves.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/14724|title=Group files ethics complaint against Bond|last=Helling|first=Dave|work=[[The Kansas City Star]] Prime Buzz|date=September 29, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081001182425/http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node%2F14724|archive-date=October 1, 2008|access-date=February 21, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=blog|date=February 2017}}
[[Bud Cummins]] (R) allegedly was asked to leave so [[Timothy Griffin]], an aide to Karl Rove, could have his job.<ref name=Johnson20070206/> Deputy Attorney General [[Paul McNulty]] testified that Cummins was removed for no reason except to install a former aide to [[Karl Rove]]: 37-year-old Tim Griffin, a former opposition research director for the [[Republican National Committee]].<ref>
{{cite news | url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-06-prosecutor-rove-aide_x.htm | title=Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job |date=2007-02-06 | newspaper=[[USA Today]] | author=Kevin Johnson}}
</ref><ref name=NYTimes2009-08-11>
{{cite news
| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/politics/12firings.html?em
| title=E-Mail Reveals Rove's Key Role in '06 Dismissals
| date=2009-08-11
| author=Eric Lichtblau, Eric Lipton
| work=[[The New York Times]]
| access-date=2009-08-14
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=White House Is Reported to Be Linked to a Dismissal | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/washington/16attorneys.html | author=David Johnston |date=2007-02-16 | work=The New York Times}}
</ref> Cummins told the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] "that Mike Elston, the deputy attorney general's top aide, threatened him with retaliation in a phone call [in February 2007] if he went public."<ref>
{{cite news | url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=atpxI2DuctG4&refer=us | title=Fired Prosecutor Says He Was Warned to Keep Quiet (Update2) | author=Robert Schmidt | date=2007-03-06 | publisher=Bloomberg News}}</ref> Emails show that Cummins passed on the warning to some of the other attorneys who were fired.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt3-6070319.pdf
|title=Archived copy
|access-date=2007-05-16
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070530222340/http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DOJDocsPt3-6070319.pdf
|archive-date=2007-05-30
}} Emails release by the House Judiciary Committee, email of Feb 20, 2007, page 17
</ref>
[[David Iglesias (attorney)|David Iglesias]] (R) U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. In 2005 [[Allen Weh]], Chairman of the [[New Mexico Republican Party]], complained about Iglesias to a White House aide for [[Karl Rove]], asking that Iglesias be removed. Weh was dissatisfied with Iglesias due in part to his failure to indict New Mexico State Senator [[Manny Aragon]] (D) on fraud and conspiracy charges. Then in 2006 Rove personally told Weh "He's gone."<ref name="RoveGone">[https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna17560718 "Report: Rove was urged to oust U.S. attorney"] - [[NBC News]] - March 11, 2007</ref>
===Administration testimony contradicted by documents===
{{See also|Bush White House e-mail controversy}}
Members of Congress investigating the dismissals found that [[sworn testimony]] from Department of Justice officials appeared to be contradicted by internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remained unclear despite hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and senior Department of Justice staff in congressional committee hearings.<ref>
{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-20 |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dems-strategy-on-attorneys-takes-shape/ |title=Dems' Strategy On Attorneys Takes Shape |author=Mike Allen |date=2007-03-20 | work=[[CBS News]]}}
</ref><ref name="NYT-Lipton-2007-05-03">{{cite news | first=Eric | last=Lipton |author2=David Johnston | title=Justice Department announces inquiry into its hiring practices | date=2007-05-03 | url =https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/washington/03attorneys.html | work =The New York Times | pages =A18 | access-date = 2007-05-09 }}
</ref>
==Reactions and congressional investigation==
{{main|Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline|Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings}}
===
The initial reaction was from the senators of the affected states. In a letter to Gonzales on January 9, 2007, Senators [[Dianne Feinstein|Feinstein]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]], California) and [[Patrick Leahy|Leahy]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]], [[Vermont]]; Chair of the Committee) of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed concern that the confirmation process for U.S. attorneys would be bypassed, and on January 11, they, together with [[Mark Pryor|Senator Pryor]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]], [[Arkansas]]), introduced legislation "to prevent circumvention of the Senate's constitutional prerogative to confirm U.S. Attorneys", called Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, {{USBill|110|S|214}} and {{USBill|110|H|580}}.<ref>
[https://web.archive.org/web/20070201014743/http://www.feinstein.senate.gov//07releases/r-usattorney-bill-intro.pdf Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Pryor to Fight Administration's Effort to Circumvent Senate Confirmation Process for U.S. Attorneys] (Press Release). ''Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein.'' January 11, 2007. Retrieved January 7, 2014.</ref>
<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070112-9999-1n12lam.html|author1=Thornton, Kelly|author2= Onell R. Soto|title=Job performance said to be behind White House firing|newspaper=[[San Diego Union Tribune]]|date=January 12, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070518060804/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070112-9999-1n12lam.html|archive-date=2007-05-18}}</ref>
The initial concern was about the USA PATRIOT Act and the confirmation process, rather than the politicization of the U.S. attorneys.
Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 18. He assured the committee that he did not intend to bypass the confirmation process and denied the firings were politically motivated.<ref>{{cite news | newspaper=The Washington Post | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801880.html | date=2007-01-19 | author=Dan Eggen | title=Prosecutor Firings Not Political, Gonzales Says | access-date=2007-04-16}}</ref>
The concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein and Pryor were followed up by hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee called by [[Chuck Schumer|Senator Schumer]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]], New York) in February.<ref>[http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2516 Notice of Rescheduled Committee Hearing, Tuesday, February 6, 2007, at 9:30 a.m] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070228215314/http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2516 |date=February 28, 2007 }} Hearing on "Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?" ''United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary'' January 30, 2007. Retrieved April 16, 2007.</ref><ref>{{cite news| date=2007-03-31 | title=Schumer again takes aim on White House| author=Tom Brune | newspaper=Newsday.com }}</ref> Deputy Attorney General [[Paul McNulty]] testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6. He said that the seven were fired for job performance issues and not political considerations; these statements led several of the dismissed attorneys, who had been previously silent, to come forward with questions about their dismissals, partially because their performance reviews prior to their dismissal had been highly favorable.<ref name="NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15"/>
In subsequent closed-door testimony on April 27, 2007, to the committee, McNulty said that days after the February hearing, he learned that White House officials had not revealed to him White House influence and discussions on creating the list.<ref name="NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15">{{cite news | first=David | last=Johnston | title=Gonzales's Deputy Quits Justice Department | date=2007-05-15 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/washington/15attorney.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fU%2fUnited%20States%20Attorneys | work =The New York Times | access-date = 2007-05-17 }}
</ref><ref name="McClatchy-Taylor_2007-05-15">{{cite news | first=Marisa | last=Taylor |author2=Margaret Talev | title=Former deputy attorney general official defends fired U.S. attorneys | date=2007-05-03 | url =http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17174983.htm | work =McClatchy Newspapers | access-date = 2007-05-15 }}</ref> McNulty in February called Senator Schumer by telephone to apologize for the inaccurate characterization of the firings.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna17628142 | publisher=NBC News Meet the Press | date=2007-03-18 |access-date=2007-04-16 | title=MTP Transcript for Mar. 18, 2007 }}</ref> McNulty testified that [[Bud Cummins]], the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, was removed to install a former aide to Karl Rove and [[Republican National Committee]] opposition research director, [[Timothy Griffin]].<ref name=Johnson20070206>{{cite news| url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-06-prosecutor-rove-aide_x.htm | title=Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job |date=2007-02-06 | newspaper=USA Today | author=Kevin Johnson}}</ref> Cummins, apparently, "was ousted after [[Harriet E. Miers]], the former White House counsel, intervened on behalf of Griffin".<ref name="NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15"/><ref>{{cite news
| title=White House Is Reported to Be Linked to a Dismissal | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/washington/16attorneys.html | author=David Johnston |date=2007-02-16 | newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref>
McNulty's testimony that the attorneys were fired for "performance related issues" caused the attorneys to come forward in protest.<ref name="NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15"/><ref>{{cite news
| url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-08-Thu-2007/news/12466253.html |author=Adrienne Packer |date=2007-02-08| newspaper=Las Vegas Review Journal |title=U.S. attorney rebuts claim performance led to firing|access-date=2007-04-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801867.html | newspaper=The Washington Post
| title=Fired Prosecutor Disputes Justice Dept. Allegation |date=2007-02-09 | access-date=2007-04-16 | author= Dan Eggen}}</ref> There is some evidence that the administration was concerned about the attorneys' going public with complaints prior to this time.<ref>{{cite magazine| url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/page/1 | title=Fuel to the Firings: Eight U.S. attorneys lost their jobs. Now investigators are assessing if the dismissals were politically motivated | date=2007-03-19 | access-date=2007-04-16 | author=Michael Isikoff| magazine=[[Newsweek]] | url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070314191640/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/ |archive-date=March 14, 2007}}</ref>
''[[Salon.com]]'' reported: "[A]t least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department official knowledgeable about their cases."<ref>{{cite news | title= Inside Bush's prosecutor purge | author=Mark Follman |date=2007-02-28 | url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/28/attorneys/}}</ref>
===Further investigation and resignations===
====Battle resignation====
On March 5, 2007 effective March 16, [[Michael A. Battle (attorney)|Michael A. Battle]] resigned his position of Director of the [[Executive Office for United States Attorneys]] (EOUSA).<ref name=Hartley20070321/><ref>
{{cite news | title=Messenger in Prosecutors' Firings Quits | author=David Johnston | date=2007-03-06 | newspaper=The New York Times | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06inquire.html?ex=1330837200&en=682ea9a6d2069de0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss| author-link=David Cay Johnston }}</ref> On March 6, 2007, Gonzales responded to the controversy in an op-ed in ''[[USA Today]]'' in which he wrote:
<blockquote>To be clear, [the firing] was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management — what have been referred to broadly as "performance-related" reasons — that seven U.S. attorneys were asked to resign last December ... We have never asked a U.S. attorney to resign in an effort to retaliate against him or her or to inappropriately interfere with a public corruption case (or any other type of case, for that matter). Like me, U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and we all serve at the pleasure of the president. If U.S. attorneys are not executing their responsibilities in a manner that furthers the management and policy goals of departmental leadership, it is appropriate that they be replaced ... While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost my confidence. I hope that this episode ultimately will be recognized for what it is: an overblown personnel matter.<ref name="Gonzales-03-06-07" /></blockquote>
====Sampson resignation====
On March 12, 2007, Sampson resigned from the Department of Justice.<ref name=LaraJakesJordan />
On March 13, Gonzales stated in a news conference that he accepted responsibility for mistakes made in the dismissal and rejected calls for his resignation that Democratic members of Congress had been making. He also stood by his decision to dismiss the attorneys, saying "I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision".<ref name=LaraJakesJordan />
Gonzales admitted that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials,<ref>{{cite press release |date=March 13, 2007 |access-date=2007-03-18 |url=http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2007/ag_speech_070313.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070825102401/http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2007/ag_speech_070313.html |archive-date=2007-08-25 |title=Transcript of Media Availability With Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales |publisher=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|access-date=2007-03-13 |work=New York Post |url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03142007/news/nationalnews/prosecutor_firings_are_my_bad___gonzales_nationalnews_.htm |agency=Associated Press |date=March 13, 2007 |title=Prosecutor Firings Are My Bad — Gonzales |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015145516/http://www.nypost.com/seven/03142007/news/nationalnews/prosecutor_firings_are_my_bad___gonzales_nationalnews_.htm |archive-date=October 15, 2007 }}</ref> and said that "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood."
Gonzales lost more support when records subsequently challenged some of these statements. Although the Department of Justice released 3,000 pages of its internal communications related to this issue, none of those documents discussed anything related to a performance review process for these attorneys before they were fired.<ref>{{cite news | date=2007-03-20 | title=E-Mails Show Justice Dept. in Damage-Control Mode | author=Ari Shapiro | publisher=National Public Radio | url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9003390}}</ref> Records released on March 23 showed that on his November 27 schedule "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the [[purge]]".<ref>{{cite news |date=2007-03-26 |title=White House backs AG as support wanes |author=Lara Jakes Jordan |agency=Associated Press |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/26/national/w074341D05.DTL |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080624113643/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F03%2F26%2Fnational%2Fw074341D05.DTL |archive-date=June 24, 2008 }}</ref>
====Executive Privilege claims====
[[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary Committee]] Chairman [[Patrick Leahy]] stated that Congress has the authority to [[subpoena]] Justice Department and White House officials including chief political advisor to the president Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.<ref name="WP-20070354">{{cite news | title= Subpoenas target Justice; White House could be next| publisher=CNN | date=2007-03-15 | url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/fired.attorneys/index.html}}</ref> On March 20, President Bush declared in a press conference that his aides would not testify under oath on the matter if [[subpoena]]ed by [[U.S. Congress|Congress]].<ref name="WP-xx">{{cite news|title= Bush Clashes With Congress on Prosecutors|work=The New York Times|date=March 20, 2007|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/us/politics/21attorneys.html?ex=1332129600&en=6190f05e97511f82&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss|access-date=2007-07-25}}</ref> Bush explained his position saying,
<blockquote>The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served ... I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials ... My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions.<ref>{{cite web|date=2007-03-20|title=President Bush Addresses Resignations of U.S. Attorneys - The Diplomatic Reception Room|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070320-8.html}}</ref></blockquote>
Despite the President's position against aides testifying, on March 21 the House Judiciary Committee authorized the subpoena of five Justice Department officials,<ref name="NYtimes3-21">{{cite news | title=Panel Approves Five Subpoenas on Prosecutors| work=The New York Times | date=2007-03-21 | author=Hulse, Carl |access-date=2007-03-23 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washington/22attorneys.html}}</ref> and on March 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas as well.<ref>{{cite news|title= Senate Panel Approves Subpoenas for 3 Top Bush Aides|author=Paul Kane|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=2007-03-23|access-date=2007-04-17|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200213.html}}</ref>
====Goodling resignation====
{{main|Monica Goodling}}
Sampson's replacement as the attorney general's temporary chief of staff was the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, [[Chuck Rosenberg]]. Rosenberg initiated a DOJ inquiry into possibly inappropriate political considerations in Monica Goodling's hiring practices for civil service staff. [[Civil Service#United States|Civil service]] positions are not political appointments and must be made on a nonpartisan basis. In one example, [[Jeffrey A. Taylor]], former interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to hire a new career prosecutor, Seth Adam Meinero, in the fall of 2006. Goodling judged Meinero too "liberal" and declined to approve the hire.<ref name="WPost-Eggen-2007-05-23">{{cite news | first=Dan | last=Eggen |author2=Carol D. Leonnig | title=Officials Describe Interference by Former Gonzales Aide | date=2007-05-23 | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201601.html | newspaper =The Washington Post | pages =A04 | access-date = 2007-05-23 }}</ref> Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency, was serving as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office. Taylor went around Goodling, and demanded Sampson's approval to make the hire. In another example, Goodling removed an attorney from her job at the Department of Justice because she was rumored to be a lesbian, and, further, blocked the attorney from getting other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for.<ref>{{cite news| first=Ari| last=Shapiro| title=Justice Rehires Attorney Fired Amid Gay Rumor| date=2009-02-02| url = https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100147494| work =National Public Radio| access-date = 2009-02-02}}</ref> Rules concerning hiring at the Justice Department forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On March 26, 2007, Goodling, who had helped coordinate the dismissal of the attorneys with the White House, took leave from her job as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House.<ref name = "NYTimes Top Aide Resigns">{{cite news|author1=Stout, David |author2=Johnson, David | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/washington/07goodling.html?pagewanted=print| title = A Top Aide to the Attorney General Resigns | date = 2007-04-06 | newspaper = The New York Times | access-date = 2007-04-07 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1081341.html | title = Gonzales aide will invoke Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify | author1 = Talev, Margaret | author2 = Hutcheson, Ron | author3 = Taylor, Marisa | date = 2007-03-26 | access-date = 2007-04-07 | newspaper = [[Star Tribune]] }}{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Goodling was set to testify before Congress, but on March 26, 2007, she cancelled her appearance at the congressional hearing, citing her [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] right against self-incrimination.<ref>{{cite news | title=Gonzales's Senior Counselor Refuses to Testify | author=Dan Eggen | newspaper=The Washington Post |date=2007-03-26 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032600935.html }}</ref> On April 6, 2007, Goodling resigned from the Department of Justice.<ref name = "NYTimes Top Aide Resigns"/>
On April 25, 2007, the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary Committee]] passed a resolution, by a 32–6 vote, authorizing lawyers for the House to apply for a court order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony and authorizing a subpoena for her.<ref>{{cite web |title=House panel approves subpoena for Rice |website=[[NBC News]] |date=25 April 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180106120243/https://www.nbcnews.com/id/18308547/ |archive-date=2018-01-06 |url-status=live |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18308547}}</ref> On May 11, 2007, [[U.S. District Court]] Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order granting Goodling [[immunity from prosecution|immunity]] in exchange for her truthful testimony in the U.S. attorney firings investigation, stating that "Goodling may not refuse to testify, and may not refuse to provide other information, when compelled to do so" before the committee.<ref>{{cite news|author1=Dan Eggen|author2=Paul Kane|title=Judge Gives Immunity to Gonzales Aide|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051102111.html|access-date=4 December 2015|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>
Goodling appeared before the [[House Judiciary Committee]], on May 23, 2007, under a limited immunity agreement,<ref name="gonzaleswatch.com">{{cite web |title=Order Granting Monica Goodling immunity |publisher=Gonzales Watch |url=http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/ |date=2007-05-11 |access-date=2007-05-11 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070618031659/http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/ |archive-date=2007-06-18 }}</ref> and provided to the committee a written statement that she read at the start of her testimony.<ref name="WPost-Eggen-2007-05-23"/><ref name='HouseJudiciary-Goodling-2007-05-23'>{{cite news|first=Monica |last=Goodling |title=Remarks of Monica Goodling before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives |date=May 23, 2007 |publisher=Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives |url=http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/GoodlingII070523.pdf |access-date=2007-05-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070530210304/http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/GoodlingII070523.pdf |archive-date=2007-05-30 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
In response to questions during the hearing, Goodling stated that she "crossed the line" and broke civil service rules about hiring, and improperly weighed political factors in considering applicants for career positions at the Department of Justice.<ref name="NYT-Stout-2007-05-23"/><ref name='WP-Goodling-Transcript-2007-05-23'>{{cite news | first=Transcripts Wire | last=Congressional Quarterly | title=Goodling Testifies Before The House Judiciary Committee | date=May 23, 2007 | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/goodling_testimony_052307.html | newspaper =Washington Post | access-date = 2007-05-23 }}</ref>
====Gonzales resignation====
A number of members of both houses of Congress publicly said Gonzales should resign, or be fired by Bush. On March 14, 2007, Senator [[John E. Sununu]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]], [[New Hampshire]]) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Gonzales' resignation. Sununu cited not only the controversial firings but growing concern over the use of the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and misuse of [[national security letters]] by the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]].<ref name="WP-20070351">{{cite news | title= GOP senator calls for Gonzales' head |author=Suzanne Malveaux |author2=Dana Bash |author3=Ed Henry |author4=Terry Frieden |work=CNN | date=2007-03-14 | url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/fired.attorneys/index.html}}</ref> Calls for his ousting intensified after his testimony on April 19, 2007. By May 16, at least twenty-two senators and seven members of the House of Representatives—including Senators [[Hillary Clinton]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]], New York) and [[Mark Pryor]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]], [[Arkansas]])—had called for Gonzales' resignation.<ref>
{{cite news | title= Sen. Pryor: Attorney General lied to the Senate |author=Dana Bash |author2=Ed Henry |author3=Terry Frieden |author4=Suzanne Malveaux |work=CNN | date=2007-03-15 | url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/fired.attorneys/index.html}}</ref>
Gonzales submitted his resignation as Attorney General effective September 17, 2007,<ref name="BBC-BushAllyResigns">{{cite news|title = Bush Ally Gonzales resigns post| work = BBC News | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6965602.stm | date = 2007-08-27 | access-date = 2007-08-28 }}</ref> by a letter addressed to President Bush on August 26, 2007. In a statement on August 27, Gonzales thanked the President for the opportunity to be of service to his country, giving no indication of either the reasons for his resignation or his future plans. Later that day, President Bush praised Gonzales for his service, reciting the numerous positions in Texas government, and later, the government of the United States, to which Bush had appointed Gonzales.<ref name="BBC-BushAllyResigns" />
On September 17, 2007, President Bush announced the nomination of ex-judge [[Michael Mukasey]] to serve as Gonzales' successor.<ref name='WPost-Eggen-2007-09-19'>{{cite news | first= Dan | last= Eggen |author2=Elizabeth Williamson | title= Democrats May Tie Confirmation to Gonzales Papers | date= September 19, 2007 | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801379.html?nav=rss_politics | newspaper = The Washington Post | pages = A10 | access-date = 2007-09-19 }}</ref>
====Testimony of Sara Taylor: Claims of executive privilege====
On July 11, 2007, [[Sara Taylor]], former top aide to Karl Rove, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Throughout Taylor's testimony, she refused to answer many questions, saying "I have a very clear letter from [White House counsel] Mr. [[Fred Fielding|[Fred] Fielding]]. That letter says and has asked me to follow the president's assertion of [[executive privilege]]."<ref name="Kwame Taylor">{{cite news|date=July 11, 2007|title=New Testimony on Fired Federal Prosecutors|publisher=PBS Newshour|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/firings_07-11.html|author=Kwame Holman|author-link=Kwame Holman|access-date=August 26, 2017|archive-date=January 19, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140119001722/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/firings_07-11.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> Chairman [[Patrick Leahy]] (D-VT) dismissed the claims and warned Taylor she was "in danger of drawing a criminal contempt of Congress citation".<ref name="Kwame Taylor"/> Senator [[Ben Cardin]] (D-MD) took issue with the claim as well, telling Taylor
{{blockquote|You seem to be selective in the use of the presidential privilege. It seems like you're saying that, 'Yes, I'm giving you all the information I can,' when it's self-serving to the White House, but not allowing us to have the information to make independent judgment.<ref name="Kwame Taylor"/>
Leahy added "I do note your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and, to the best of your knowledge, he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House because it seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved."<ref name="Kwame Taylor"/> He also said "It's apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels it does not have to explain itself to anyone, not to the people's representatives in Congress nor to the American people."<ref name="Taylor Excerpts">{{cite news|title=Excerpts from the Sara M. Taylor hearing |agency=Associated Press |date=2007-07-11 |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6349986 }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}
</ref>}}
In summary, Taylor told the Senate that she
<blockquote>"did not talk to or meet with President Bush about removing federal prosecutors before eight of them were fired", she had no knowledge on whether Bush was involved in any way in the firings, her resignation had nothing to do with the controversy, "she did not recall ordering the addition or deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired", and she refuted the testimony of Kyle Sampson, Attorney General [[Alberto Gonzales]]' chief of staff, that she sought "to avoid submitting a new prosecutor, [[Timothy Griffin|Tim Griffin]], through Senate confirmation."<ref name="Kwame Taylor"/><ref name="Aide">{{cite news|title=Aide: Didn't Talk to Bush About Firings |date=2007-07-11 |author=Laurie Kellman |agency=Associated Press |url=https://www.theguardian.com/worldlatest/story/0,,-6772568,00.html |___location=London |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071025150246/http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6772568,00.html |archive-date=October 25, 2007 }}</ref></blockquote>
===Contempt of Congress charges===
On July 11, 2007, as Sara Taylor testified, George Manning, the attorney to former [[White House Counsel]] Harriet Miers, announced that Miers intended to follow the request of the Bush Administration and not appear before the Committee the following day. Manning stated Miers "cannot provide the documents and testimony that the committee seeks."<ref>{{cite news|title=Bush orders Miers to defy house subpoena|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19704513|access-date=4 December 2015|work=NBC News}}</ref>
On July 17, 2007 Sanchez and Conyers notified White House Counsel [[Fred Fielding]] that they were considering the executive privilege claims concerning a "subpoena issued on June 13 to [[Joshua Bolten]], [[White House Chief of Staff]], to produce documents."<ref name="fielding warning">{{cite web|title=Conyers, Sánchez Respond to RNC on Subpoena, Alerts White House of Potential Ruling on Immunity, Privilege Claims |date=2007-07-17 |author1=Linda Sánchez |author2=John Conyers, Jr. |url=http://www.lindasanchez.house.gov/news.cfm/article/334 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070725204318/http://www.lindasanchez.house.gov/news.cfm/article/334 |archive-date=July 25, 2007 }}</ref> They warned, "If those objections are overruled, you should be aware that the refusal to produce the documents called for in the subpoena could subject Mr. Bolten to contempt proceedings".<ref name="fielding warning"/> The panel ruled the claims of privilege as invalid on a party-line vote of 7–3.<ref name="faces">{{cite news|title=Bush chief of staff faces possible contempt charge|date=2007-07-20|url=http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-28568320070720|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170203100432/http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-28568320070720|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 3, 2017|work=Reuters}}</ref>
On July 25, 2007 the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary]] voted along party lines 22–17 to issue citations of [[Contempt of Congress]] to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.<ref name="NPR-Shapiro-2007-07-25">{{cite news|title=Bush Aides in Contempt; Will They Be Prosecuted?|author=Ari Shapiro|date=2007-07-25|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12234115|work=All Things Considered |publisher=National Public Radio}}</ref> Committee Republicans voted against the measure, calling it "a partisan waste of time", while Democrats said "this is the moment for Congress to rein in the administration."<ref name="NPR-Shapiro-2007-07-25"/>
On February 14, 2008, the [[United States House of Representatives]] voted 223–32 along party lines to pass the contempt resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Bolten and former White House Counsel Miers.<ref>{{cite news|title=House passes contempt resolution against white house officials|author=Paul Kiel|date=2008-02-14|url=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/house_passes_contempt_votes_ag.php}}</ref><ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/PelosiToMukasey080228.pdf Original text of the Letter from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Attorney General Michael Mukasey informing him of the contempt resolution passing the House] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080529013513/http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/PelosiToMukasey080228.pdf |date=May 29, 2008 }}</ref> Most Republicans staged a walkout during the vote.
==Aftermath==
===Subpoenas and lost emails===
{{see also|Bush White House e-mail controversy}}
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that some of the emails that had involved official correspondence relating to the firing of attorneys may have been lost because they were conducted on Republican party accounts and not stored properly. "Some official e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake the White House is aggressively working to correct." said Stanzel, a White House spokesman. Stonzel said that they could not rule out the possibility that some of the lost emails dealt with the firing of U.S. attorneys.<ref>{{cite news | title= White House: E-mails on firings may have been killed |agency=Reuters |date=2007-04-11}}</ref> For example, [[J. Scott Jennings]], an aide to Karl Rove communicated with [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department officials]] "concerning the appointment of [[Timothy Griffin|Tim Griffin]], a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released in March, 2007. For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the [[Republican National Committee]], where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher."<ref name=WP-GSA-20070326>{{cite news | title = GSA Chief Is Accused of Playing Politics: Doan Denies 'Improper' Use of Agency for GOP | author= Scott Higham |author2=Robert O'Harrow Jr | newspaper=The Washington Post | date=2007-03-26 |page=A01 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032501048.html }}</ref>
CNN reported a larger question concerning the lost e-mails: "Whether White House officials such as political adviser Karl Rove are intentionally conducting sensitive official presidential business via non-governmental accounts to evade a law requiring preservation—and eventual disclosure—of presidential records."<ref>{{cite news | title= Leahy: Aides lying about White House-Justice e-mails|publisher=CNN |date=2007-04-12 }}</ref>
On May 2, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Gonzales compelling the Department of Justice to produce all email from Karl Rove regarding evaluation and dismissal of attorneys that was sent to DOJ staffers, no matter what email account Rove may have used, whether White House, National Republican party, or other accounts, with a deadline of May 15, 2007, for compliance. The subpoena also demanded relevant email previously produced in the [[Valerie Plame]] controversy and investigation for the [[Plame affair|2003 CIA leak scandal]].<ref>
Lahey, Patrick [http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/doj/sjc50207rovesmailsubpoena.pdf Rove Email Subpoena] ''United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary''' (via ''Findlaw'') May 2, 2007. Retrieved May 8, 2007.
</ref>
In August 2007, Karl Rove resigned without responding to the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena claiming, "I just think it's time to leave."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-adviser-karl-rove-to-resign-at-end-of-month |title=Bush Adviser Karl Rove to Resign at End of Month |publisher=Foxnews.com |date=2007-08-13 |access-date=2011-04-17}}</ref>
===Appointment of U.S. attorneys and the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization===
The president of the United States has the authority to appoint [[United States Attorney|U.S. attorneys]], with the consent of the [[United States Senate]], and the president may remove U.S. attorneys from office.<ref>
{{USC|28|541}}</ref> In the event of a vacancy, the [[United States attorney general]] is authorized to appoint an interim U.S. attorney. Before March 9, 2006, such interim appointments expired after 120 days, if a presidential appointment had not been approved by the Senate. Vacancies that persisted beyond 120 days were filled through interim appointments made by the [[Federal District Court]] for the district of the vacant office.<ref name="Title28 Section 546 before Patriot">{{USC|28|546}} (U.S. Code prior to amendments of the USA PATRIOT Act, as of the retrieval date March 15, 2007.)</ref>
The [[USA PATRIOT Act|USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005]], signed into law March 9, 2006, amended the law for the interim appointment of U.S. attorneys by deleting two provisions: (a) the 120-day maximum term for the attorney general's interim appointees, and (b) the subsequent interim appointment authority of [[United States district courts|Federal District Courts]]. With the revision, an interim appointee can potentially serve indefinitely (though still removable by the President), if the president declines to nominate a U.S. attorney for a vacancy, or the Senate either fails to act on a presidential nomination, or rejects a nominee that is different than the interim appointee.
On June 14, 2007, President Bush signed a bill into law that re-instated the 120-day term limit on interim attorneys appointed by the attorney general.<ref name="Help Wanted"/>
==See also==
{{Portal|United States|Politics|Law|2000s}}
*[[List of federal political scandals in the United States]]
*[[Don Siegelman]]
*[[Cyril Wecht]]
*[[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]] (ACORN)
*[[Rachel Paulose]]
==Notes==
{{Reflist|30em}}
==External links==
{{sister project links}}
* [https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/DOJDocsPt10-1070319.pdf Resignation letters and emails, and other related documents hosted by WSJ]
* [https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-retro_DOJemails_070319.html Inside the U.S. Attorneys Emails: Major Players and Themes] ''The Wall Street Journal'' (review of the most significant of the emails).
* Allegra Hartley [https://web.archive.org/web/20110604230812/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070321/21attorneys-timeline_print.htm Timeline: How the U.S. Attorneys Were Fired] ''U.S. News & World Report''
{{Presidency of George W. Bush}}
[[Category:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy|*]]
[[Category:Investigations and hearings of the United States Congress]]
[[Category:Patrick Leahy]]
[[Category:Political scandals in the United States]]
[[Category:Patriot Act]]
[[Category:110th United States Congress]]
[[Category:2006 in American politics]]
[[Category:2006 in American law]]
[[Category:2006 controversies in the United States]]
[[Category:George W. Bush administration controversies]]
[[Category:Resignations from the United States
| |||