US Attorney / Scandal

=<div>8/17 includes the office</div><div>now 2 scandals?</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>819 AN</div><div>
</div><div><div>no lnx</div><div>
</div><div>Why we need the 2020 Democratic debates to probe candidates’ US attorney picks</div><div> NBC News</div><div>Written by Filter July 30, 2019</div><div>by Rory Fleming</div><div>
</div><div>Our top federal prosecutors are called United States attorneys. There are only 94 of these presidential appointees, and they are among the most powerful people in the nation. With the surging criminal justice reform movement focusing more and more on prosecutors, we need direct scrutiny of presidential candidates’ intentions for these crucial, often devastating roles.</div><div> </div><div>Like top local prosecutors, US attorneys have nearly unfettered discretion in who they charge with a crime and what to charge them with. But they have even more power than that.</div><div>
</div><div>Federal criminal law includes a large number of draconian mandatory minimum prison sentences, and judges have rigid sentencing guidelines even when mandatory minimums don’t apply. There is no parole in the federal system, either. As such, federal criminal cases are resolved by often-coercive plea deals even more often than state cases—a whopping 97 percent of federal cases end this way. And it’s US attorneys who negotiate recommended sentencing ranges for—and ultimately consent to—these plea deals.</div><div>
</div><div>What would leading Democratic candidates prioritize, given the responsibility of making these crucial appointments?</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Presidents from both political parties have historically appointed the most tough-on-crime prosecutors with a viable resume. The Senate is a hypothetical barrier to unethical people taking these posts, but partisan divisions tend to outweigh such concerns—making the president’s call all-important if their party holds the Senate.</div><div>
</div><div>For example, in 2017 David Freed, Trump’s US attorney pick for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, slid in through a non-recorded voice vote—despite the revelation that he hired Evan McLaren, one of America’s most prominent white nationalists, while Freed was the Cumberland County, Pennsylvania district attorney. During Freed’s DA tenure, Black people made up 3 percent of the county population and 25 percent of its prison admissions.</div><div>
</div><div>So what would the leading Democratic presidential candidates prioritize, given the responsibility of making these crucial appointments?</div><div>
</div><div>We have some indications. As California attorney general, Kamala Harris blithely let prosecutors off the hook for cheating and lying on some of the state’s most serious cases. However, Harris has endorsed both progressive reformers like Geneviéve Jones-Wright andconservative-lean establishment Democrats like Suzy Loftus for California DA seats.</div><div>
</div><div>Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, both endorsedhyper-progressive Queens DA candidate Tiffany Cabán, who pledgedto no longer prosecute drug possession, turnstile jumping, prostitution, trespassing, disorderly conduct, loitering, drug possession and welfare fraud, while going after white-collar criminals.* In 2018, Amy Klobuchar endorsed Mike Freeman, a bullish, misogynistic Democrat with a penchant for racist commentsand huge racial disparities in prosecution, over reformer Mark Haase in Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis.</div><div>
</div><div>Despite such indications, there’s a large extent to which we just don’t know. And that’s why we need candidates to be asked about this during the debates—to publicly commit them, if that’s the case, to reform-minded picks.</div><div>
</div><div>Don’t Assume That Any Democrat Means Progress</div><div>Simply assuming that any Democrat president would automatically lead to rapid improvement in this area is lazy and flawed. Despite President Obama praising reformers like DAs Larry Krasner and Rachael Rollins after he left office, his own US attorney picks often proved to be terrible.</div><div>
</div><div>Then-US Attorney Carmen Ortiz, Obama’s choice for the District of Massachusetts, was widely blamed for the suicide of Aaron Swartz, Reddit co-founder and one of the most brilliant technological minds of the 21st century. Swartz attempted to make federal court documents stored on PACER free to the public. Without people paying PACER 10 cents per page for nominally public records, the records of US Attorneys are largely hidden, with most glimpses of the federal justice system only available via propagandistic press releases from the Department of Justice. Ortiz gave Swartz no quarter, burying him with 12 federal charges that could have sent him to prison for five decades. Swartz was 26 when he died.</div><div>
</div><div>Another example is Obama’s US attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, Joyce White Vance. Vance is now known for being one of several Obama-era law enforcement chiefs who have since identified themselves with #TheResistance. But earlier, she too ruined young lives without much concern.</div><div>
</div><div>In one case, Vance used her discretion to treat a young man in his early 20s who sexted with his girlfriend—a teenager who was above the legal age of consent for sex in his state—like a predatory pedophile. The sentencing judge wrote in her opinion that, “An odd day arises when a young man, who could legally have consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend, will forever be labeled a sex offender for receiving provocative pictures of her that she sent him via text message.”</div><div>
</div><div>Alabama is only one of three states that require every person convicted of any sex offense to publicly register as a “sex offender” for life, with no exceptions or provision for removal after many years of compliance. Vance surely knew this, and effectively tied Judge Karon Bowdre’s hands by charging the case as she did, with devastating consequences for the young man.</div><div>
</div><div>Far-Reaching Powers Demand Public Scrutiny</div><div>US attorneys know how powerful they are, and tend to act accordingly.</div><div>
</div><div>They often send the goriest possible recitations of offenses to judges, who take those documents very seriously in determining sentences.</div><div>
</div><div>They undermine transparency, using secret federal grand juries to investigate suspects and working closely with the FBI, long known for its extreme aversion to openness.</div><div>
</div><div>And they enjoy near-immunity. When a US attorney is caught committing professional misconduct or worse, they will have the full backing of the federal Department of Justice in a quest to conceal that from the public.</div><div>
</div><div>One case demonstrated a virtual “license to steal.” In 2016, when H. James Pickerstein, the former US Attorney for the District of Connecticut, admitted stealing $600,000 from his law practice’s clients, dozens of prominent legal figures testified to his character and Pickerstein, a white man, was sentenced to 30 days in prison. Contrast that with the 2011 case in which Tanya McDowell, a homeless Black mom in the same state, enrolled her son in a public school district neighboring where she lived, and was sentenced to five years in prison.</div><div>
</div><div>The malign influence of many US Attorneys has also leached through and poisoned local, grassroots-driven progress on criminal justice reform.</div><div>
</div><div>With opposition growing to the United States’ position as the most incarcerated nation on earth, local top prosecutor elections are now increasingly competitive for reform candidates. But Trump’s US attorney for Philadelphia, William McSwain, has re-prosecuted cases that were handled by reform DA Larry Krasner. The reason, as expressed by McSwain himself, is that Krasner’s “isn’t putting fear into hearts” of people who break the law. (For good measure, McSwain is also spearheading federal efforts to block a proposed safe consumption site to reduce overdose deaths in Philly.)</div><div>
</div><div>This is the debate America desperately needs to hear.</div><div>
</div><div>The potential of US attorneys to do harm is not only vast but growing, and extends even beyond US borders. Modern technology and law allow federal prosecutors to snatch up local state cases on such tenuous grounds as an “instrumentality of crime,” like a cellphone, having been made in a different jurisdiction. For nonviolent internet crimes like Swartz’s, there is essentially concurrent jurisdiction for crimes committed abroad. Two different autistic men from other nations—Irish Silk Road operator Gary Davisand British hacker Lauri Love—have fought extradition on human rights grounds, because American prisons are much worse and known to mistreat people with autism.</div><div>
</div><div>Potential presidents’ intentions for US attorney picks is the debate America desperately needs to hear. Federal prosecutors have immense, unchecked discretion, and their identities and inclinations are thus critical. In a political era where partisanship trumps all, presidents often have effective carte blanche to pick whom they please.</div><div>
</div><div>All the presidential candidates should be grilled on this question early and often.</div><div>
</div><div>*The author briefly worked on Tiffany Cabán’s campaign in early 2019, as well as Geneviéve Jones-Wright’s campaign in spring 2018.</div></div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/did-trumps-personal-lawyer-help-fire-key-us-attorney">http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/did-trumps-personal-lawyer-help-fire-key-us-attorney</a></div><div>
</div><div>6/17</div><div>There’s no shortage of important unanswered questions surrounding Donald Trump’s White House, but as we <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watching-comey-fired-us-attorney-experiences-deja-vu" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; text-decoration-line: none;">discussed</a> yesterday, one of the more important lines of inquiry is why the president fired dozens of U.S. attorneys without notice or explanation.</div>Of particular interest are the circumstances surrounding Preet Bharara, who served as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, which made him one of the most important and highest profile federal prosecutors in the United States, tackling cases ranging from terrorism to Wall Street to government corruption. After the 2016 election, Bharara wanted to stay at his post, and both Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions made the same commitment: the New York prosecutor could stay right where he was.In March, Trump reversed course and fired Bharara anyway, and the federal prosecutor still has no idea why. Pro Publica <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-personal-lawyer-boasted-that-he-got-preet-bharara-fired" rel="nofollow" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; text-decoration-line: none;">reports</a> this morning on one possible explanation.<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; font-style: italic;">Marc Kasowitz, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer in the Russia investigation, has boasted to friends and colleagues that he played a central role in the firing of Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, according to four people familiar with the conversations.Kasowitz told Trump, “This guy is going to get you,” according to a person familiar with Kasowitz’s account.</blockquote>Kasowitz, it’s worth emphasizing, is an ally of the president who’s represented Trump in a variety of lawsuits, including the fraud allegations surrounding Trump University. He’s now responsible for overseeing the defense of the president, despite his lack of experience in cases like these, and by all appearances, he’s <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/russia-scandal-reaches-new-level-donald-trump-lawyers" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; text-decoration-line: none;">off to a rough start</a>.It’s entirely possible that Kasowitz was boasting to his friends and colleagues in a dubious way, exaggerating his influence to make his White House reach sound more impressive. That said, it’s at least plausible that Kasowitz would’ve been in a position to offer Trump occasional advice on legal matters, and he may have seen Bharara as a potential threat to his pal in the Oval Office.<a name="break" id="break" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;" /><a name="break" id="break" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">Given that we have no other credible explanation for why Trump fired Bharara, it’s at least worth considering.</a><a name="break" id="break" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">If, however, Kasowitz was directly involved in the firing of a federal prosecutor because he hoped to shield his client from legal trouble, it’s hard not to wonder whether Trump’s lawyer needs a lawyer.</a><div><a name="break" id="break" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
</a></div><div><a name="break" id="break" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;"></a></div><div><a name="break" id="break" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">J20</a></div><div><a name="break" id="break" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;"></a><a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/meet-us-attorney">https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/meet-us-attorney</a></div><div>
</div><div>On October 8, 2015, President Barack Obama nominated Channing D. Phillips to become the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.  Mr. Phillips has been serving as the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia since October 19, 2015 pursuant to the Attorney General’s appointment authority and subsequently by an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.   Mr. Phillips’ confirmation is pending with the United States Senate.Mr. Phillips formerly served as counselor to the Attorney General, and also served as the Executive Director for the Attorney General’s Diversity Management Advisory Council and was the day-to-day coordinator for diversity-management issues within the Department and the Department’s primary contact for external agencies on these issues.Mr. Phillips has served the Department of Justice in many capacities over the years, including Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. He first joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1994, where he prosecuted violent crime, drug trafficking, gun, and fraud offenses in both the Superior Court and the Criminal Divisions. Mr. Phillips initially joined the U.S. Department of Justice in 1990 as a trial attorney with the Organized Crime & Racketeering Section of the Criminal Division.A native Washingtonian, U.S. Attorney Phillips is a 1980 graduate of the University of Virginia and a 1986 graduate of the Howard University School of Law. Following law school, Mr. Phillips worked for the law firm of Charles Morgan Associates, Chartered, in Washington, D.C., before serving as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Shellie F. Bowers, Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div><a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-nd/meet-us-attorney">https://www.justice.gov/usao-nd/meet-us-attorney</a></div><div>
</div><div><h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 10px 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" padding="padding" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Christopher C. Myers</h2><p class="rteright" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; text-align: right;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">
On Feb. 6, 2016, the Honorable U. S. District Court Chief Judge Ralph R. Erickson continued the appointment of Christopher C. Myers as the United States Attorney for the District of North Dakota.Myers has served as acting and interim U.S. Attorney since March of 2015.Myers stated that, "I have been honored and privileged to serve as U.S. Attorney for the District of North Dakota for the past two years. I am excited to continue leading this dedicated and talented group of attorneys and support staff at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. We strive every day to do our very best to serve the citizens of North Dakota and continue to work shoulder-to-shoulder with our federal, state, local, and tribal partners to ensure public safety. Violent crime, especially those crimes perpetrated against children, remain a priority as will the fight against organized crime."While violent and sophisticated criminal organizations attempt to prey on North Dakotans throughout the State, our collective law enforcement response will be swift and sure. Rest assured, we will retain the quality of life we enjoy in North Dakota. Criminal organizations will find North Dakota a particularly unfavorable place to do business."As U.S. Attorney, Chris will place special emphasis on providing a voice for victims of crime in North Dakota.  Accordingly, the acronym, V.O.I.C.E., highlights the top priorities of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in North Dakota:Violent Crime.  The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of North Dakota will leverage all available tools and resources to investigate and prosecute violent crime throughout the District.  Our office will actively assist our state, local, and tribal partners wherever and whenever possible to reduce violent crime in North Dakota.Organized Crime.  There will be a relentless pursuit by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in North Dakota to dismantle criminal organizations operating in North Dakota.  The Bakken Strike Force was developed to attack organized criminal activity in the Bakken region including drug, firearm, and human trafficking, in addition to white collar organized crime.Indian Country.  Public safety in our tribal communities will remain a high priority.  Our office will continuously focus on investigating and prosecuting  violent crime, organized crime, and the protection of children in Indian Country.Children.  Protecting these most vulnerable members of our communities from all forms of abuse and exploitation remains an utmost priority for our office.Environmental Crime and Protecting the Public Treasury.  Our natural resources in North Dakota are precious.  Enforcement of the Clean Air and Water Acts as well as other Federal statutes to protect North Dakota’s natural resources will remain a priority.  The Civil Division will continue to aggressively defend lawsuits and use affirmative civil enforcement tools to protect the public treasury and natural resources of the United States.Chris has been a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney's Office for nearly 15 years. Before his appointment as Acting U.S. Attorney on March 13, 2015, he served as First Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA) since December of 2013.Before being named FAUSA, Chris was the lead OCDETF (Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force) prosecutor for over ten years.  He has led numerous complex investigations which have resulted in the successful prosecution of many dangerous criminal enterprises.  Chris has also handled a number of high profile murder cases in the region both in state and federal court.Prior to becoming an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 2002, Chris served as the Chief Assistant Clay County Attorney from 1998-2002.  He also served as an Assistant Cass County States Attorney and as a Special Agent with the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation.Chris is a 1987 graduate of Fargo North High School; he graduated in 1992 from North Dakota State University.  He earned his law degree in conjunction with his Masters of Public Administration from Drake University in 1995.Myers will serve as United States Attorney until the President of the United States nominates a new U.S. Attorney for North Dakota and the United States Senate confirms the nominee pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 541.</div><div>
</div><div>
<div><div id="node-body-top" class="clear-block" style="line-height: 28px; width: 630px;">March 7, 2005, Leonard Leo tapped out an email on his BlackBerry to Mary Beth Buchanan, then the director of the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, suggesting a candidate to replace Carol Lam, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California. "You guys need a good candidate?" Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, wrote to Buchanan, herself a member of the influential conservative lawyers' group. "I'd strongly recommend the current GC [general counsel] of the Air Force, Mary Walker."</div><div id="node-body-break"><div id="node-body-bottom" style="line-height: 28px; width: 630px;">At the time, White House and Justice Department officials were in preliminary talks about replacing an unspecified number of "underperforming" federal prosecutors, a plan that would culminate almost two years later in the forced resignations of nine U.S. Attorneys, including Lam, and ignite a scandal that has claimed the jobs of at least four high-ranking Justice Department officials. Leo's email, written so early in the process, speaks to the close relationship that has developed between the Federalist Society—an organization whose aims include "reordering priorities" within the judicial system to fit its conservative agenda—and key Justice Department decision makers, many of whom are members of the group.While perhaps not a prerequisite for employment at the highest echelons of Justice, membership in the society has become a standard by which political appointees at the agency identify candidates who share their agenda. Some officials at the agency view it as such an indicator of conservative virtue that membership in the society was included as a category—along with Hill and campaign experience—on a spreadsheet that was used to rank the qualifications of the 93 sitting U.S. Attorneys, a document included in the reams of Justice Department memoranda released by the House Judiciary Committee this spring.Beyond highlighting the organization's role as the administration's de facto headhunter for conservative lawyers and judges, Leo's correspondence raises the question of what, if any, role the Federalist Society played in the prosecutor firings. Leo did not respond to messages left at his office and on his cell phone, but he told the New York Times last night that, when he emailed Buchanan, he was unaware that a plan was in the works to replace multiple U.S. Attorneys. But, he acknowledged, his recommendation was not unsolicited. "The only way I could have possibly made that recommendation is if somebody said to me, 'Gee, do you know anyone who would be good?'" he said.Leo's email, released yesterday as part of an ongoing congressional investigation into the prosecutor firings, marks the second time in as many days that his name has been raised in connection with the probe. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Bradley Schlozman—the controversial Justice Department official who replaced Todd Graves as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri—acknowledged seeking Leo's advice on candidates to fill career positions at the agency.Unlike his former colleague, Monica Goodling, who testified that she "crossed the line" in vetting the political bonafides of job applicants, Schlozman denied subjecting potential hires to a political litmus test.His record would suggest otherwise. Schlozman is a member of the Federalist Society, and in May the Boston Globe reported that half of the career lawyers hired during his tenure were members of the society or the conservative Republican National Lawyers Association; among the eight hires during the previous two years, none had been. According to Joseph Rich, a 37-year veteran of the Justice Department who served as the head of the agency's voting rights section until 2005, Schlozman was among a cadre of appointees who have presided over an unprecedented wave of politicization at the agency. Within the Civil Rights division, where Schlozman served until March 2006, "there appeared to be a conscious effort to remake the Division's career staff," Rich told Congress in March. He described "major" changes in hiring procedures "which virtually eliminated any career staff input into the hiring of career attorneys." As a result, he went on, the attorneys hired for the division had "little if any experience in, or commitment to, the enforcement of civil rights laws."The politicization of Justice went well beyond hiring practices, according to Rich, extending to efforts to "influence elections." Schlozman, he says, was part of a group of political appointees that greenlighted Tom DeLay's controversial redistricting plan, which resulted in Texas Republicans winning a record number of U.S. House seats in the 2004 election. Later, while serving as the interim U.S. Attorney in Missouri, Schlozman indicted four voter registration recruiters for the <a href="http://www.acorn.org/" target="new" sites="sites" all="all" assets="assets" orange-border.png="orange-border.png" background-repeat="background-repeat" repeat-x="repeat-x" text-shadow="text-shadow" white="white" px="px" style="text-decoration: none; background-position: 0% 90%; background-image: url(">Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now</a> (ACORN) on charges of voter fraud days before the mid-term elections. (During his Senate appearance this week, Schlozman maintained that he was unaware of ACORN's political leanings.)The Federalist Society's advice has been sought not only on Justice Department hires: Leonard Leo is one of the Bush administration's go-to experts on the federal judiciary. When the time arrived for the president to fill two open Supreme Court slots, Leo took a temporary leave from the Society in order to advise the administration. The administration did end up selecting two Federalist Society members for the high court, bringing to four the number of Supreme Court justices (Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito) who claim membership in the organization.Leo was less successful in selling Justice on his pick to replace Carol Lam. This owed, perhaps, to Mary Walker's controversial past. In addition to being accused of whitewashing an investigation of rampant sexual assault at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Walker also headed the group of Pentagon lawyers that produced a report arguing that the president was not bound by the Geneva Conventions. When Lam stepped down in February, she was replaced by one of her deputies, Karen Hewitt—also a member of the Society.Daniel Schulman is Mother Jones' deputy Washington, DC, bureau chief. Reach him at dschulman (at) motherjones.com. Dan is the New York Times best-selling author of Sons of Wichita=</div></div></div><div>
<div>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy</div><div>
</div><div>The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy was initiated by the unprecedented<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[1]</a> midterm dismissal of seven <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney" title="United States Attorney" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">United States Attorneys</a> on December 7, 2006, by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_George_W.Bush" title="Presidency of George W. Bush" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">George W. Bush administration</a>'s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice" title="United States Department of Justice" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Department of Justice</a>. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_of_the_President" title="Executive Office of the President" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">White House</a> were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party(United_States)" title="Republican Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Republican</a> politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party(United_States)" title="Democratic Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Democratic</a> politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Bowermaster-2" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[2]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WashingtonPost-20070513-3" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a> The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act" title="USA PATRIOT Act" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">USA PATRIOT Act</a> reauthorization.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Newsweek-Sceifo-2007-03-15-4" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[4]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WP-Eggen-2007-03-14-5" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[5]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WP-Graphic-2007-03-06-6" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[6]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-CBS-Public-Eye-2007-03-14-7" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Boston-Globe-AP-Jordan-2007-09-15-8" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a>The dismissed U.S. Attorneys had all been appointed by President <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W.Bush" title="George W. Bush" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">George W. Bush</a> and confirmed by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate" title="United States Senate" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Senate</a>, more than four years earlier.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WP-Gonzaales-2007-04-15-9" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[9]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NPR-ME-2007-03-14-10" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[10]</a> Two other attorneys were dismissed in controversial circumstances in 2005–2006. Twenty-six or more U.S. Attorneys had been under consideration for dismissal during this time period.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[11]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[12]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WP-Memos-List-2007-05-28-13" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[13]</a> The firings received attention via hearings in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress" title="United States Congress" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Congress</a> in January 2007, and by March 2007 the controversy had national visibility. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General" title="United States Attorney General" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Attorney General</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales" title="Alberto Gonzales" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Alberto Gonzales</a> stated that the U.S. Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president" and described the affair as "an overblown personnel matter".<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Gonzales-03-06-07-14" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[14]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-15" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[15]</a>By mid-September 2007, nine of the highest-level officers of the Department of Justice associated with the controversy had resigned,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WPost-Eggen-2007-09-19-16" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[16]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Jordan-17" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[17]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WP-Eggen-2007-06-23-18" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[18]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-McClatchy-Gordon-2007-08-22-19" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[19]</a> most prominently, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-TalkingPointsMemo-Gonzales_Resignation_Letter-2007-08-27-20" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[20]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYTimes-Nizza-2007-08-27-21" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[21]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NY_Times-Myers-2007-08-27-22" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[22]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NY_Times-Phillips-2007-08-27-23" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[23]</a>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".<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-USDOJ-IG-24" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[24]</a> In July 2010, the Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firing was inappropriately political, but not criminal, saying "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-25" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[25]</a>
<div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 7px; display: table; zoom: 1; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><div id="toctitle" style="direction: ltr; text-align: center;"><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border: none; display: inline; line-height: 1.3; background: none;">Contents</h2>  [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#" id="togglelink" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">hide</a>] </div><ul style="line-height: 1.6; list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Issues_in_brief" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">1 Issues in brief</a><ul style="line-height: 1.6; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Changed_interim_appointment_law_in_2006" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">1.1 Changed interim appointment law in 2006</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Administration_rationale_unclear" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">1.2 Administration rationale unclear</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Administration_testimony_contradicted_by_documents" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">1.3 Administration testimony contradicted by documents</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Politicization_of_hiring_at_the_Department_of_Justice" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">1.4 Politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Dismissed_attorneys_and_elections" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">1.5 Dismissed attorneys and elections</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Fallout" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">2 Fallout</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Replacement_of_the_U.S.Attorneys" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">3 Replacement of the U.S. Attorneys</a><ul style="line-height: 1.6; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Initial_planning" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">3.1 Initial planning</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Kyle_Sampson" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">3.2 Kyle Sampson</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Implementing_the_plan" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">3.3 Implementing the plan</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-12" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Reactions_and_congressional_investigation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">4 Reactions and congressional investigation</a><ul style="line-height: 1.6; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#January_2007:Initial_reaction" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">4.1 January 2007: Initial reaction</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-14" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#February_2007:The_controversy_grows" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">4.2 February 2007: The controversy grows</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-15" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#March_2007:Transition_to_scandal" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">4.3 March 2007: Transition to scandal</a><ul style="line-height: 1.6; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-16" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Battle_resignation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">4.3.1 Battle resignation</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-17" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Sampson_resignation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">4.3.2 Sampson resignation</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-18" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Executive_Privilege_claims" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">4.3.3 Executive Privilege claims</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-19" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Goodling_resignation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">4.3.4 Goodling resignation</a></li></ul></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-20" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Congressional_hearings" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5 Congressional hearings</a><ul style="line-height: 1.6; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-21" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Testimony_of_Sara_Taylor:Claims_of_executive_privilege" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.1 Testimony of Sara Taylor: Claims of executive privilege</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-22" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Contempt_of_Congress_charges" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.2 Contempt of Congress charges</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-23" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Subpoenas_and_lost_emails" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">6 Subpoenas and lost emails</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-24" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#March.E2.80.93August_2007:Gonzales_resignation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">7 March–August 2007: Gonzales resignation</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-25" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Status_of_interim_U.S.Attorneys.2C_through_June_2007" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">8 Status of interim U.S. Attorneys, through June 2007</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-26" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Inspector_General_Report_and_Special_Prosecutor" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">9 Inspector General Report and Special Prosecutor</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-27" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Appointment_of_U.S.Attorneys_and_the_2005_Patriot_Act_reauthorization" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">10 Appointment of U.S. Attorneys and the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization</a><ul style="line-height: 1.6; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-28" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#The_appointment_process_for_U.S.Attorneys" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">10.1 The appointment process for U.S. Attorneys</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-29" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Revised_interim_appointment_process_in_March_2006" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">10.2 Revised interim appointment process in March 2006</a><ul style="line-height: 1.6; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-30" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Related_USA_Patriot_Act_provision" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">10.2.1 Related USA Patriot Act provision</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-31" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Dismissal_of_U.S.Attorneys_under_previous_administrations" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">10.3 Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys under previous administrations</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-32" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Law_references" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">11 Law references</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-33" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#See_also" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">12 See also</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-34" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Notes" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">13 Notes</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-35" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#References_and_external_links" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">14 References and external links</a></li></ul></div><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Issues in brief[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: Issues in brief" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>The U.S. Attorneys controversy touches upon a wide range of issues. The U.S. Attorneys, in their pursuit of justice, wield enormous power. Their political impartiality in deciding which cases to prosecute and in arguing those cases before judges and juries with diverse views is essential.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NLJ-Coyle-2007-04-27-26" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[26]</a> The scandal pitted Congress against the Bush White House, generating a series of<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution" title="United States Constitution" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">constitutional</a> issues. As the controversy unfolded, it led to other controversies, notably the politicization of hiring at the U.S. Department of Justice, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_e-mail_controversy" title="Bush White House e-mail controversy" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bush White House e-mail controversy</a>, and the alleged politically motivated prosecutions by U.S. Attorneys in several states.The following sections briefly summarize aspects of the controversy. More thorough analyses are further below, or in the related articles.<h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Changed interim appointment law in 2006<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=2" title="Edit section: Changed interim appointment law in 2006" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3><div class="hatnote boilerplate seealso" style="font-style: italic; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">See also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#The_appointment_process_for_U.S.Attorneys" title="Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">The appointment process for U.S. Attorneys</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Griffin" title="Timothy Griffin" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Timothy Griffin</a></div>As the controversy emerged, U.S. Senators were concerned about a little-noticed provision in the re-authorization of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act" title="USA PATRIOT Act" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">USA PATRIOT Act</a> in 2006 that eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys made by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General" title="United States Attorney General" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">United States Attorney General</a> to fill vacancies. The law 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 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; the law undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-27" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[27]</a> The U.S. Senate was concerned that, in dismissing the U.S. Attorneys, the administration planned to fill the vacancies with its own choices, thus bypassing Senate confirmation and the traditional consultation with Senators in the selection process. Congress rescinded the provision by very large majorities in March and May 2007, and it was quietly signed into law without ceremony by President George W. Bush on June 14, 2007.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-28" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[28]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-29" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[29]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-30" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[30]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Administration rationale unclear<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=3" title="Edit section: Administration rationale unclear" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3><div class="hatnote boilerplate seealso" style="font-style: italic; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">See also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#Inspector_General_Report_and_Special_Prosecutor" title="Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Inspector General Report and Special Prosecutor</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Lam" title="Carol Lam" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Carol Lam</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Renzi" title="Rick Renzi" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Rick Renzi</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_K.Charlton" title="Paul K. Charlton" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Paul K. Charlton</a></div>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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Bowermaster-2" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[2]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-JaneAnnMorrison-31" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[31]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Taylor-Gordon20070126-32" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[32]</a> Critics said that the attorneys were fired for failing to prosecute <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party(United_States)" title="Democratic Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Democratic</a> politicians, for failing to prosecute claims of election fraud that would hamper Democratic voter registration, as retribution for prosecuting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party(United_States)" title="Republican Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Republican</a> politicians, or for failing to pursue adult obscenity prosecutions.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-33" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[33]</a> 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Gonzales-03-06-07-14" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[14]</a>However, at least six attorneys had recently received positive evaluations of their performance from the Department of Justice.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-34" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[34]</a> In September 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General's investigation concluded that the dismissals were politically motivated and improper.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-USDOJ-IG-24" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[24]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Administration testimony contradicted by documents</h3><div class="hatnote boilerplate seealso" style="font-style: italic; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">See also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_e-mail_controversy" title="Bush White House e-mail controversy" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bush White House e-mail controversy</a></div>Members of Congress investigating the dismissals found that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sworn_testimony" title="Sworn testimony" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">sworn testimony</a> 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-35" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[35]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYT-Lipton-2007-05-03-36" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[36]</a> The 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYT-Stolberg-2007-03-17-37" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[37]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-38" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[38]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-39" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[39]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-40" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[40]</a> The origin and evolution of the list of attorneys to be dismissed remained unclear.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WP-Senate-Judiciary-Transcript-Gonzales-2007-04-19-41" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[41]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WP-AP-Jordan-2007-05-15-42" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[42]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Salon-Scherer-McNulty-2007-05-23-43" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[43]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WP-AP-Jordan-2007-05-29-44" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[44]</a> In response the Inspector General's report in September 2008, Attorney General <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mukasey" title="Michael Mukasey" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Michael Mukasey</a> appointed a special prosecutor to determine if administration officials had perjured themselves in testimony to Congress.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-IHT-09-29-2008-45" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[45]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=5" title="Edit section: Politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>Attorney General Gonzales, in a confidential order dated March 1, 2006, not published in the Federal Register, formally delegated authority to senior DOJ staff <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling" title="Monica Goodling" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Monica Goodling</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Sampson" title="Kyle Sampson" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Kyle Sampson</a> to hire and dismiss political appointees and some civil service positions.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Nat-Jnl-Waas-2007-04-30-46" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[46]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-47" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[47]</a> On May 2, 2007, the Department of Justice announced two separate investigations into hirings conducted by Goodling: one by the department's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General" title="Inspector General" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Inspector General</a>, and a second by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Professional_Responsibility" title="Office of Professional Responsibility" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Office of Professional Responsibility</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYT-Lipton-2007-05-03-36" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[36]</a> 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYT-Stout-2007-05-23-48" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[48]</a>According to a January 2009 Justice Department report, investigators found that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Schlozman" title="Bradley Schlozman" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bradley Schlozman</a>, 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-49" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[49]</a>In a letter of May 30, 2007, to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Judiciary_Committee" title="Senate Judiciary Committee" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Senate Judiciary Committee</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice_Office_of_the_Inspector_General" title="United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General</a> and Counsel for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Professional_Responsibility" title="Office of Professional Responsibility" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Office of Professional Responsibility</a> confirmed that they were expanding their investigation beyond "the removals of United States Attorneys" to include "DOJ hiring and personnel decisions" by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling" title="Monica Goodling" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Monica Goodling</a> and other Justice Department employees.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-May_30.2C_2007_Letter_to_Senate_Judiciary_Committee-50" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[50]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WaPo-Eggen-2007-05-30-51" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[51]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dismissed attorneys and elections<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=6" title="Edit section: Dismissed attorneys and elections" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3><div class="hatnote boilerplate seealso" style="font-style: italic; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">See also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Domenici" title="Pete Domenici" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Pete Domenici</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Wilson" title="Heather Wilson" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Heather Wilson</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Schlozman" title="Bradley Schlozman" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bradley Schlozman</a></div>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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WashingtonPost-20070513-3" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-52" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[52]</a> Such allegations were made by some of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys themselves to suggest reasons they may have been dismissed.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-53" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[53]</a> 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-54" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[54]</a> By 2006, the pursuit of voter fraud cases was an acknowledged political strategy of the Republican Party, although most had little substance.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-55" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[55]</a> The use of U.S. Attorneys for partisan purposes is highly improper, particularly given the strong non-partisan traditions of the U.S. Attorneys. 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-USDOJ-IG-24" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[24]</a><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Fallout[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=7" title="Edit section: Fallout" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>By April 2007, the apparent politicization of the Department of Justice, the influence of politics on the appointment of some of the U.S. Attorneys, and the alleged politically motivated prosecutions by some of the U.S. Attorneys began to affect cases of public corruption and voter fraud nationwide. According to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Law_Journal" title="National Law Journal" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">National Law Journal</a>,<blockquote style="overflow: hidden; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Just the appearance of political influence in cases related to those firings, combined with the recent, unusual reversal of a federal public corruption conviction in Wisconsin [c.f., <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Thompson" title="Georgia Thompson" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Georgia Thompson</a>], some say, will spur aggressive defense lawyers to question the political motivation of prosecutors in certain cases; make magistrates and judges more skeptical of the evidence before them; and perhaps even chill line prosecutors in their pursuit of some indictments."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NLJ-Coyle-2007-04-27-26" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[26]</a></blockquote>By mid-September 2007, nine senior staff of the Department of Justice associated with the controversy had resigned.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WPost-Eggen-2007-09-19-16" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[16]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Jordan-17" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[17]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WP-Eggen-2007-06-23-18" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[18]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-McClatchy-Gordon-2007-08-22-19" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[19]</a> The most prominent resignations include:<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 22.4px;"><dd style="line-height: 1.6; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><ul style="line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(data:image/svg+xml,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%20encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%0A%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20version%3D%221.1%22%20width%3D%225%22%20height%3D%2213%22%3E%0A%3Ccircle%20cx%3D%222.5%22%20cy%3D%229.5%22%20r%3D%222.5%22%20fill%3D%22%2300528c%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E%0A);"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">
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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYT-Lichtblau-2008-06-17-56" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[56]</a>Attorney General <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales" title="Alberto Gonzales" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Alberto Gonzales</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-TalkingPointsMemo-Gonzales_Resignation_Letter-2007-08-27-20" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[20]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYTimes-Nizza-2007-08-27-21" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[21]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NY_Times-Myers-2007-08-27-22" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[22]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NY_Times-Phillips-2007-08-27-23" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[23]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Deputy_Attorney_General" title="United States Deputy Attorney General" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Deputy Attorney General</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McNulty" title="Paul McNulty" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Paul McNulty</a>;</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Acting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Associate_Attorney_General" title="United States Associate Attorney General" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Associate Attorney General</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W.Mercer" title="William W. Mercer" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">William W. Mercer</a> 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);</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_staff" title="Chief of staff" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Chief of staff</a> for the Attorney General <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Sampson" title="Kyle Sampson" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Kyle Sampson</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Chief of Staff for the Deputy Attorney General <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Elston" title="Michael Elston" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Michael Elston</a>;</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Director of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_attorney#Executive_Office_for_United_States_Attorneys" title="United States attorney" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA)</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A.Battle" title="Michael A. Battle" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Michael A. Battle</a>;</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">the subsequently appointed Director to the EOUSA, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Schlozman" title="Bradley Schlozman" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bradley Schlozman</a>, also the former acting Assistant Attorney General for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice_Civil_Rights_Division" title="United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Civil Rights Division</a>;</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">the Department of Justice's White House Liaison <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling" title="Monica Goodling" style="text-decoration: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 102);">Monica Goodling</a></li></ul></dd></dl><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Replacement of the U.S. Attorneys[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=8" title="Edit section: Replacement of the U.S. Attorneys" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">
In reply, Kyle Sampson, then Department of Justice counsel to Attorney General <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft" title="John Ashcroft" style="line-height: 22.4px; text-decoration: none; background: none;">John Ashcroft</a>, 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."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Rove2005-58" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[58]</a> The White House at one time suggested that the plan for dismissals came from White House counsel <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers" title="Harriet Miers" style="line-height: 22.4px; text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Harriet Miers</a>, who left the White House in January 2007 before the dismissal received public attention.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Eggen-Solomon20070313-59" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[59]</a>
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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Rove2005-2nd-57" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[57]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Rove2005-58" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[58]</a>Initial planning<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=9" title="Edit section: Initial planning" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Kyle Sampson...</h3></div><div>
</div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Iglesias(attorney)" title="David Iglesias (attorney)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 102);">David Iglesias</a> (R) believes he was removed from office at the behest of two NM Republican congressmen when he refused to prosecute state Democratic senators before the November 2006 election.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-71" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[71]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_V.Ryan" title="Kevin V. Ryan" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Kevin Ryan</a> (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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-72" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[72]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McKay(attorney)" title="John McKay (attorney)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">John McKay</a> (R) Was given a positive job evaluation 7 months before he was fired. After a close WA governor's race resulted in a Democratic victory, local Republicans criticized McKay for not investigating allegations of voter fraud.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-73" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[73]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_K.Charlton" title="Paul K. Charlton" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Paul K. Charlton</a> (R) Was given a positive job performance evaluation before he was dismissed. He may have been fired because he had started a corruption investigation about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Renzi" title="Rick Renzi" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Rick Renzi</a> (R) AR.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-74" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[74]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Lam" title="Carol Lam" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Carol Lam</a> (R) oversaw the Rep. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy%22Duke%22_Cunningham" title="Randy " duke="Duke" cunningham="Cunningham" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Randy "Duke" Cunningham</a> military contracting corruption case. Congressman <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Issa" title="Darrell Issa" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Darrell Issa</a> complained (falsely) that Lam was not prosecuting illegal border crossings aggressively enough.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-75" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[75]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Bogden" title="Daniel Bogden" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Daniel Bogden</a> (R) was dismissed after 17 years because of a vague sense that a "stronger leader" was needed. His loyalty to President Bush was questioned by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Sampson" title="Kyle Sampson" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Kyle Sampson</a>(R) Chief of Staff and Counselor to Attorney General <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales" title="Alberto Gonzales" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Alberto Gonzales</a>(R).<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-76" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[76]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Chiara" title="Margaret Chiara" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Margaret Chiara</a>(R) Was given a positive job evaluation in 2005, and told she was being removed to "make way" for another individual.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-77" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[77]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Graves" title="Todd Graves" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Todd Graves</a> (R) had been pressed to bring a civil suit against Missouri Secretary of State <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Carnahan" title="Robin Carnahan" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Robin Carnahan</a>, (D) for allegedly failing to crack down on voting fraud.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-78" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[78]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Cummins" title="Bud Cummins" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Bud Cummins</a> (R) allegedly was asked to leave so <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Griffin" title="Timothy Griffin" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Timothy Griffin</a>, an aide to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove" title="Karl Rove" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Karl Rove</a>, could have his job.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Johnson20070206-79" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[79]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M.DiBiagio" title="Thomas M. DiBiagio" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Thomas M. DiBiagio</a> (R) believes he was asked to step down due to his corruption investigations into the administration of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R).<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-80" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[80]</a><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Reactions and congressional investigation[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=12" title="Edit section: Reactions and congressional investigation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2><div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle" style="font-style: italic; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Main article: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy_timeline" title="Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline</a></div><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">January 2007: Initial reaction<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=13" title="Edit section: January 2007: Initial reaction" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>The initial reaction was from the senators of the affected states. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Senate" title="U.S. Senate" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">U.S. Senate</a> convened for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress" title="110th United States Congress" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">110th Congress</a> on January 4 with its new <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party(United_States)" title="Democratic Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Democratic</a> majority. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Judiciary_Committee" title="Senate Judiciary Committee" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Senate Judiciary Committee</a> has oversight over the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney" title="United States Attorney" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">U.S. Attorneys</a>. In a letter to Gonzales on January 9, 2007, Senators <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein" title="Dianne Feinstein" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Feinstein</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party(United_States)" title="Democratic Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">D</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California" title="California" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">California</a>) and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy" title="Patrick Leahy" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Leahy</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party(United_States)" title="Democratic Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">D</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont" title="Vermont" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Vermont</a>; 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pryor" title="Mark Pryor" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Senator Pryor</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party(United_States)" title="Democratic Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">D</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas" title="Arkansas" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Arkansas</a>), 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, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/214" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">S. 214</a> and <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/580" style="text-decoration: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">H.R. 580</a>. Feinstein issued a press release about the bill.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Marosi-81" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[81]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-82" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[82]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-83" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[83]</a> The initial concern was about the USA PATRIOT Act and the confirmation process, rather than the politicization of the U.S. Attorneys that later dominated the controversy.The earliest reporting of this affair was by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Marshall" title="Josh Marshall" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Josh Marshall</a> and his associates on Marshall's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Points_Memo" title="Talking Points Memo" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">TalkingPointsMemo</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog" title="Blog" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">blog</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-84" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[84]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-85" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[85]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-86" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[86]</a>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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-87" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[87]</a>On January 18, 2007, in an opinion piece for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Jane Ann Morrison reported that "A GOP source [had indicated] that the decision to remove U.S. attorneys, primarily in the West, was part of a plan to 'give somebody else that experience' to build up the back bench of Republicans by giving them high-profile jobs."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-JaneAnnMorrison-31" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[31]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marisa_Taylor&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Marisa Taylor (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Marisa Taylor</a>, writing for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_McClatchy_Company" title="The McClatchy Company" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">McClatchy Newspapers</a>, noted that,<blockquote style="overflow: hidden; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"The newly appointed U.S. attorneys all have impressive legal credentials, but most of them have few, if any, ties to the communities they've been appointed to serve, and some have had little experience as prosecutors. The nine recent appointees identified [as replacements] held high-level White House or Justice Department jobs, and most of them were handpicked by Gonzales..." "Being named a U.S. attorney 'has become a prize for doing the bidding of the White House or administration,' said <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Levenson" title="Laurie Levenson" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Laurie Levenson</a>, a former federal prosecutor who is a professor at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_Law_School" title="Loyola Law School" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Loyola Law School</a> in Los Angeles."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Taylor-Gordon20070126-32" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[32]</a></blockquote><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">February 2007: The controversy grows<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=14" title="Edit section: February 2007: The controversy grows" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>The concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein and Pryor were followed up by hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee called by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer" title="Chuck Schumer" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Senator Schumer</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party(United_States)" title="Democratic Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">D</a>, New York) in February.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-88" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[88]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-89" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[89]</a> Deputy Attorney General<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McNulty" title="Paul McNulty" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Paul McNulty</a> testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6. He underscored that the seven were fired for job performance issues, and not political considerations.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15-90" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[90]</a>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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15-90" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[90]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-McClatchy-Taylor_2007-05-15-91" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[91]</a> McNulty in February called Senator Schumer by telephone to apologize for the inaccurate characterization of the firings.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-92" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[92]</a> At least six of the seven had recently received outstanding job performance ratings. McNulty testified that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Cummins" title="Bud Cummins" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bud Cummins</a>, the U.S. Attorney for Arkansas, was removed to install a former aide to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove" title="Karl Rove" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Karl Rove</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Committee" title="Republican National Committee" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Republican National Committee</a> opposition research director, the 37-year-old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Griffin" title="Timothy Griffin" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Timothy Griffin</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Johnson20070206-79" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[79]</a> Cummins, apparently, "was ousted after <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_E.Miers" title="Harriet E. Miers" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Harriet E. Miers</a>, the former White House counsel, intervened on behalf of Griffin".<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15-90" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[90]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-93" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[93]</a>McNulty's testimony that the attorneys were fired for "performance related issues" caused the attorneys to come forward in protest.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYT-Johnston-2007-05-15-90" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[90]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-94" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[94]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-95" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[95]</a> There is some evidence that the administration was concerned about the attorneys' going public with complaints prior to this time.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-96" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[96]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com" title="Salon.com" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Salon.com</a> 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."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-97" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[97]</a>The proceedings were politically charged. At one point Senator Schumer was criticized by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter" title="Arlen Specter" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Senator Specter</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party(United_States)" title="Republican Party (United States)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">R</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania" title="Pennsylvania" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Pennsylvania</a>), also on the Judiciary Committee, for having a conflict of interest by being a lead investigator of the affair while also chairing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Senatorial_Campaign_Committee" title="Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee</a>; such criticism was short-lived.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-98" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[98]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-99" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[99]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">March 2007: Transition to scandal<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=15" title="Edit section: March 2007: Transition to scandal" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3><h4 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 22.3999996185303px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Battle resignation<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=16" title="Edit section: Battle resignation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h4>On March 5, 2007 effective March 16, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A.Battle" title="Michael A. Battle" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Michael A. Battle</a> resigned his position of Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA).<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Hartley20070321-68" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[68]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-100" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[100]</a> On March 6, 2007, Gonzales responded to the controversy in an op-ed in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Today" title="USA Today" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">USA Today</a> in which he wrote:<blockquote style="overflow: hidden; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption" title="Political corruption" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">corruption</a> 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."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-Gonzales-03-06-07-14" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[14]</a></blockquote><h4 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 22.3999996185303px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sampson resignation<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=17" title="Edit section: Sampson resignation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h4>On March 12, 2007, Sampson resigned from the Department of Justice.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-LaraJakesJordan-67" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[67]</a> 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".<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-LaraJakesJordan-67" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[67]</a> Gonzales admitted that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-101" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[101]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-102" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[102]</a> 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-103" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[103]</a> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purge" title="Purge" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">purge</a>".<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-104" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[104]</a><h4 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 22.3999996185303px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Executive Privilege claims<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=18" title="Edit section: Executive Privilege claims" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h4><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary" title="United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Senate Judiciary Committee</a> Chairman <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy" title="Patrick Leahy" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Patrick Leahy</a> stated that Congress has the authority to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena" title="Subpoena" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">subpoena</a> Justice Department and White House officials including chief political advisor to the president <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove" title="Karl Rove" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Karl Rove</a> and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WP-20070354-105" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[105]</a> On March 20, President Bush declared in a press conference that his aides would not testify under oath on the matter if <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena" title="Subpoena" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">subpoenaed</a> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Congress" title="U.S. Congress" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Congress</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WP-xx-106" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[106]</a> Bush explained his position saying,<blockquote style="overflow: hidden; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"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."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-107" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[107]</a></blockquote>Despite the President's position against aides testifying, on March 21 the House Judiciary Committee authorized the subpoena of five Justice Department officials,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYtimes3-21-108" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[108]</a> and on March 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas as well.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-109" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[109]</a><h4 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 22.3999996185303px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Goodling resignation<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy&action=edit&section=19" title="Edit section: Goodling resignation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h4><div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle" style="font-style: italic; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Main article: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling" title="Monica Goodling" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Monica Goodling</a></div>Sampson's replacement as the Attorney General's temporary chief of staff was U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Rosenberg&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Chuck Rosenberg (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Chuck Rosenberg</a>. Rosenberg initiated a DOJ inquiry into possibly inappropriate political considerations in Monica Goodling's hiring practices for civil service staff. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service#United_States" title="Civil Service" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Civil service</a> positions are not political appointments and must be made on a nonpartisan basis. In one example, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_A.Taylor" title="Jeffrey A. Taylor" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Jeffrey A. Taylor</a>, 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-WPost-Eggen-2007-05-23-110" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[110]</a>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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-111" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[111]</a> 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,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYTimes_Top_Aide_Resigns-112" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[112]</a> took leave from her job as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-113" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[113]</a> Goodling was set to testify before Congress, but on March 26, 2007, Goodling cancelled her appearance at the Congressional hearing, citing her <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Fifth Amendment</a> right against self-incrimination.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-114" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[114]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-115" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[115]</a> On April 6, 2007, Ms. Goodling resigned from the Department of Justice,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-116" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[116]</a> stating in her three-sentence resignation letter to Mr. Gonzales, "May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-NYTimes_Top_Aide_Resigns-112" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[112]</a>On April 25, 2007, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_the_Judiciary" title="United States House Committee on the Judiciary" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">House Judiciary Committee</a> passed a resolution,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-117" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[117]</a> 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-118" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[118]</a> On May 11, 2007, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.District_Court" title="U.S. District Court" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">U.S. District Court</a> Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order granting Goodling <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution" title="Immunity from prosecution" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">immunity</a> 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy#cite_note-119" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[119]</a><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Congressional hearings</h2></div><div>
<div>
</div><div><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Graves&action=edit&section=2&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2><div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle" style="font-style: italic; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Main article: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S.attorneys_controversy" title="Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy</a></div>In January, 2006, Graves was asked to step down from his job by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A.Battle" title="Michael A. Battle" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Michael A. Battle</a>, then director of the Justice department's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_for_U.S.Attorneys" title="Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Graves#cite_note-WP-20070510-7" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a>Sen. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_S.Bond" title="Christopher S. Bond" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Christopher S. Bond</a>, on Graves' request, asked the White House for an extension of Graves's tenure so that he could finish an important case; the request was not granted.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Graves#cite_note-WP-20070510-7" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a>Graves had clashed with Justice's civil rights division over a federal lawsuit involving Missouri's voter rolls. DOJ 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Schlozman" title="Bradley Schlozman" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bradley Schlozman</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Graves#cite_note-WP-20070510-7" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Graves#cite_note-MCC-20070504-8" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a>In April 2007, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Graves#cite_note-WP-20070510-7" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a>After Graves' resignation, Schlozman succeeded him, remaining for a year until the Senate, in April 2007, confirmed John Wood for the job. Wood was a counselor to the deputy attorney general and is a son of Bond's first cousin.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Graves#cite_note-WP-20070510-7" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a>In October 2008, Senator <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Bond" title="Kit Bond" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Kit Bond</a> apologized to Todd Graves, after a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Justice_Department" title="U.S. Justice Department" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">U.S. Justice Department</a> report cited Bond forcing Graves out over a disagreement with Representative <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Graves" title="Sam Graves" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Sam Graves</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Graves#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[9]</a> Following the report, Attorney General <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mukasey" title="Michael Mukasey" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Michael Mukasey</a> appointed a special prosecutor to investigate whether former Attorney General <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales" title="Alberto Gonzales" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Alberto Gonzales</a> and other officials involved in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys broke the law.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Graves#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[10]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washington" title="Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington</a> filed an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_Committee" title="Ethics Committee" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Ethics Committee</a> complaint against Bond over his role in the ouster of Graves.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Graves#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[11]</a></div><div>
op ed
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/opinion/04fri4.html?ex=1335931200&en=9697872f8b81f953&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&r=0

There

is yet another United States attorney whose abrupt departure from

office is raising questions: Debra Wong Yang of Los Angeles. Ms. Yang

was not fired, as eight other prosecutors were, but she resigned under

circumstances that raise serious questions, starting with whether she

was pushed out to disrupt her investigation of one of the most powerful

Republicans in Congress.If

the United States attorney scandal has made one thing clear, it is that

the riskiest job in the Bush administration is being a prosecutor

investigating a Republican member of Congress. Carol Lam, the United

States attorney in San Diego, was fired after she put Randy Cunningham,

known as Duke, in prison. Paul Charlton, in Arizona, was dismissed while

he was investigating Rick Renzi. Dan Bogden, in Nevada, was fired while

he was reportedly investigating Jim Gibbons, a congressman who was

elected governor last year.Ms.

Yang was investigating Jerry Lewis, who was chairman of the powerful

House Appropriations Committee. Ms. Lam and most of the other purged

prosecutors were fired on Dec. 7. Ms. Yang, in a fortuitously timed

exit, resigned in mid-October.Ms.

Yang says she left for personal reasons, but there is growing evidence

that the White House was intent on removing her. Kyle Sampson, the

Justice Department staff member in charge of the firings, told

investigators last month in still-secret testimony that Harriet Miers,

the White House counsel at the time, had asked him more than once about

Ms. Yang. He testified, according to Congressional sources, that as late

as mid-September, Ms. Miers wanted to know whether Ms. Yang could be

made to resign. Mr. Sampson reportedly recalled that Ms. Miers was

focused on just two United States attorneys: Ms. Yang and Bud Cummins,

the Arkansas prosecutor who was later fired to make room for Tim

Griffin, a Republican political operative and Karl Rove protégé.It

is hard to see what put Ms. Yang on the White House list other than her

investigation of Mr. Lewis, which threatened to pull in well-connected

lobbyists, military contractors and Republican contributors. Ms. Yang,

by all accounts, had a strong record. Alberto Gonzales hailed her as

“one of the most respected U.S. attorneys in the country.”

The

new job that Ms. Yang landed raised more red flags. Press reports say

she got a $1.5 million signing bonus to become a partner in Gibson, Dunn

& Crutcher, a firm with strong Republican ties. She was hired to be

co-leader of the Crisis Management Practice Group with Theodore Olson,

who was President Bush’s solicitor general and his Supreme Court lawyer

in Bush v. Gore. Gibson, Dunn was defending Mr. Lewis in Ms. Yang’s

investigation.Several

issues bear investigating. First, did Ms. Yang know or suspect that she

might lose her job, and jump ship to avoid being fired? That is not

hard to believe because Ms. Miers and Mr. Sampson were exchanging e-mail

about dismissing her in mid-September, and she announced her departure

in October. Ms. Yang served on the Attorney General’s Advisory

Committee, which Mr. Gonzales has called “a small group of U.S.

attorneys that I consult on policy matters.” That may have put her in a

position to be tipped off in advance.A

second possibility is that Gibson, Dunn dangled a rich financial

package before Ms. Yang to get her out, and to disrupt the investigation

of Mr. Lewis. Ms. Yang, who says she left her job purely for personal

reasons, may not have known she was being lured away by people with

close ties to Mr. Lewis and the White House, who were hoping to replace

her with a more partisan prosecutor.Another

possibility is that the timing of her departure was coincidental. That

would make her lucky indeed: after more than 15 years of working for

government, she decided to take a private sector job precisely when the

White House counsel was apparently trying to fire her.It

is impossible to know how much of a setback Ms. Yang’s departure was to

the investigation of Mr. Lewis. It could be that it slowed down after

she left. It could also be that it is going forward just as it would

have had she stayed. If it has not been affected, that could be because

the close attention Congress and the press are paying to United States

attorneys has prevented the White House from installing a “loyal

Bushie,” in Mr. Sampson’s famous phrase.United

States attorneys serve, as the White House likes to point out, at the

pleasure of the president. But if Ms. Yang, or any of the others, was

pushed out to prevent justice from being done in a pending criminal

matter, it would be a serious misuse of executive authority. It could

also be obstruction of justice.Congress

is conducting closed-door interviews with Justice Department officials.

That is important, but hardly enough. It is looking more and more as if

the United States attorney dismissals were managed out of the White

House. The way to put to rest the questions about Ms. Yang’s suspicious

departure, and the firings of the other prosecutors, is to require that

Ms. Miers, Mr. Rove and other White House officials tell what they know,

in public and under oath.==
</div></div></div></div>