The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S7418-S7419 on June 11, 2007.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issues surrounding the removal of eight U.S. attorneys last year. Attorney General Gonzales has claimed that he had no involvement in the firing of the U.S. attorneys. In fact, this is his statement. He said:
I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the Attorney General.
That is really a stunning claim. His own Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, admitted the Attorney General misled the country. He is not alone. Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, said:
I don't think the Attorney General's statement that he was not involved in any discussions . . . was accurate. I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign.
The Washington Post reported, on Michael Battle, the former Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and I quote from that story:
The former Justice Department official who carried out the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year told Congress . . . that a memo on the firings was distributed at a November 27 meeting attended by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
NBC News reported on William Mercer, the Acting Associate Attorney General:
Justice Department official William W. Mercer told congressional investigators on April 11 that he attended a meeting with the Attorney General . . . to discuss ``fired U.S. Attorney Carol Lamm's situation.''
It is simply not credible that the Attorney General of the United States had no role in the removal of eight U.S. attorneys. After all, he is the head of the Justice Department. To his credit, the Attorney General did eventually admit that he had misspoken in describing his lack of involvement. Given the growing public record, I don't think he had much choice.
However, to the great disappointment of people on both sides of the aisle, the Attorney General failed miserably in his attempt to set the record straight. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General used the words, ``I don't recall,'' or a variant on those words, 64 times. ``I don't recall,'' ``I don't have any recollection,'' ``I have no memory''--64 times. Some counts have that number at over 70. Some even approach 90.
Time after time, the Attorney General was unable to respond to even basic questions. He couldn't explain or couldn't remember why the U.S. attorneys were fired or how he was involved. Again, his performance was truly stunning. His inability or refusal to answer basic questions raises serious issues. Is he incompetent or is he simply playing the loyal soldier? Why were these U.S. attorneys removed?
Unfortunately, the answer that immediately suggests itself is that these firings were politically motivated. Let's look at some of the fired U.S. attorneys and the possible political reasons for their dismissal. Here we have them.
David Iglesias, New Mexico--there was a probe of Democrats not completed quickly enough. We had prominent Republicans complaining that he had not reached conclusion on a probe of Democrats quickly enough.
Carol Lamm, in California--she secured the conviction of a Republican Congressman, also had indicted the No. 3 official at the CIA, and was investigating a Republican Congressman.
Daniel Ogden, Nevada--investigated a Republican Governor and former Republican Congressman.
Bud Cummins in Arkansas--was replaced by a Karl Rove operative. He investigated a Republican Governor of Missouri.
John McCay, in Washington State--to the dismay of local GOP partisans, did not investigate the gubernatorial election won by a Democrat.
Paul Charlton, Arizona--he investigated Republican Congressman Jim Colby and Rick Renzi.
You start to connect the dots here. They said the reason these people were removed was because of poor performance. At least that is the assertion of the Attorney General. But if you look at the written reviews of these same U.S. attorneys, ones who had been removed and ones for whom you can find a clear partisan reason for their removal--
look at the written reviews of their performance, which is the reason given by the Attorney General for their removal.
David Iglesias, New Mexico, written review:
Respected by the judiciary, agencies and staff . . . complied with department priorities.
Carol Lamm, California:
Effective manager and respected leader.
Daniel Ogden, Nevada:
Overall evaluation was very positive.
Bud Cummins of Arkansas:
Very competent and highly regarded.
John McCay, Washington State:
Effective, well-regarded and capable leader.
Paul Charlton, Arizona:
Well respected . . . established goals that were appropriate to meet the priorities of the department.
What do we have here? The Attorney General says he wasn't involved. Others of his own staff say he was involved. Then he says it was performance reasons for which these people were removed, but if you look at the written reviews of the people who were removed, their performance reviews were excellent.
But what you do have is a clear political motivation in case after case involving these U.S. attorneys. When you go back to the reason the Attorney General is giving now, that it is performance based, here is what the former supervisor of these prosecutors said:
Comey added that:
The reasons given for their firings have not been consistent with my experience. . . .
And that:
I had very positive encounters with these folks.
Comey was effusive in his praise of several of the fired prosecutors.
Comey was the Deputy Attorney General, and he described Paul Charlton of Arizona as `` one of the best.'' He said he had a very positive view of David Iglesias of New Mexico, and called Daniel Ogden of Las Vegas
``straight as a Nevada highway and a fired-up guy.''
Of John McCay of Seattle, Comey said:
I was inspired by him.
Now, it doesn't take long to figure out what has happened. The Attorney General comes and testifies he can't recall, he doesn't remember, that he wasn't really a part of it. He is contradicted by his own staff. Then he says it is performance based, but the performance reviews are without exception positive for these people who have been fired. Their supervisor, who was Deputy Attorney General, has rave reviews for virtually all of them.
Let's connect the dots. These are politically motivated firings. I don't know what other conclusion one can come to, and that is a very serious matter. I have been in the Senate for more than 20 years. I have never come to the floor and raised questions about the political motivation of an Attorney General--never. I do so now, and I do it because I believe this is a serious matter.
When the administration of justice becomes politically tainted in this country, that is an enormously serious matter. There is no longer, in my mind, any question but that this Attorney General has tainted his office. That is only further demonstrated by his late night visit to the hospital bed of the Attorney General of the United States, at that time John Ashcroft, to get him to sign documents that he refused to sign about the legality of certain actions of this administration.
We have seen enough. This Attorney General needs to leave his office. He has tainted his office. He does not deserve the high responsibility and enormous honor serving as Attorney General of the United States.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
____________________
