Miers and Taylor Will Be Subpoenaed, Officials Say
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published June 13, 2007 by the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-F ... nted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Fired-Prosecutors.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two congressional committees are issuing subpoenas for testimony from former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor on their roles in the firings of eight federal prosecutors, according to two officials familiar with the investigation.
Democrats probing whether the White House improperly dictated which prosecutors the Justice Department should fire also are subpoenaing the White House for all relevant documents, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the move had not yet been formally made public.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont issued Taylor's subpoena for her testimony July 11. His counterpart in the House, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan, issued a subpoena for Miers' testimony the next day.
The White House has repeatedly refused to make current and former officials involved in the firings available except in private interviews, without transcripts. Congressional investigators have refused that offer.
''The committees can easily obtain the facts they want without a confrontation by simply accepting our offer for documents and interviews,''White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday. ''But it's clear that Sen. Leahy and Rep. Conyers are more interested in drama than facts.''
Miers left the White House Jan. 4, while Taylor's last day was May 30.
The House and Senate chairmen implicitly threatened a constitutional showdown if the White House does not comply -- or strike a deal.
''The breadcrumbs in this investigation have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania,'' said Conyers, D-Mich. ''This investigation will not end until the White House complies with the demands of this subpoena in a timely and reasonable manner so that we may get to the bottom of this.''
''The White House cannot have it both ways -- it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred,'' Leahy added.
Technically, if the showdown between the White House and Congress is not resolved, the matter could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a session in federal court.
Congressional officials knowledgeable about the probe painted a dark picture of what the Democratic-led committees might do if the White House refuses to comply.
One option, these officials said, are votes in committee and on the House and Senate floors on contempt citations against any subjects of the subpoenas who don't comply. Another, according to one aide, is a subpoena for White House Counsel Fred Fielding, compelling him to testify publicly about the Bush administration's reasons if the subpoenas are ignored.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., pointed out that a resolution without a constitutional showdown is in both sides' interests.
''I don't believe in threats,'' he said in a telephone interview, adding that he hopes to negotiate with Fielding later in the day. ''I believe in taking it a step at a time.''
Democrats have widely demanded that Gonzales step down over the firings and his general stewardship of the Justice Department. Seven Senate Republicans voted with Democrats Monday on a no-confidence resolution against Gonzales and many more members of the GOP have called publicly for a new attorney general. The resolution fell seven votes short of the 60 required to advance it to a formal up-or down vote.
For his part, Gonzales has said he plans to stay until the end of Bush's second term, and the president continues to stand by his longtime friend.
The subpoenas come a day after newly-released Justice Department documents revealed that Taylor was closely involved in the firings. In a Feb. 16 e-mail, Taylor described a U.S. attorney in Arkansas who was fired last year as ''lazy'' -- ''which is why we got rid of him in the first place,'' according to the documents.
Former prosecutor Bud Cummins, reached Tuesday night for comment, responded: ''I'm sure I have some faults, but my work ethic hasn't been one them.'' Taylor also complained that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told senators that Cummins was replaced at the urging of Miers, then White House counsel.
It's the first time during the five-month investigation that Congress is compelling testimony from White House insiders over the firings. Not yet on the subpoena list is President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, but only because Democrats have not yet finished interviewing those below him, the officials said.
Democrats say the firings are evidence that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales allowed his traditionally independent federal law enforcement agency to be run, in effect, by the White House.
Republicans point out that U.S. attorneys serve at the president's pleasure and can be fired for any reason, or none at all. Former and current top Justice Department officials have said the list of the eight fired was drawn up on the advice of several senior officials. E-mails made public have shown that Miers, Taylor and Rove were looped into the decisionmaking process and attended meetings on the firings.
This is fantastic news! :twisted: The dogs are sniffing up to 1600 Penn Ave FINALLY for the stink that's been coming from there all along.
Lacking power to end the war immediately, yet seeking to tie Bush up in scandal knots that distracts his attention, and intentions, the Democrats are going after Gonzales, and I have a feeling they're not going to stop even when he leaves his office to spend more time with the billions he's stolen...er, his family...
I think it's time for a major housecleaning, it's happening, it's slow but getting speedier. I'd heard that 2006 sweeping the Dems in was going to effectively shut down the government, or at least Bush's evil multinational petrocratic endtime plans, and that is what is happening.
He's still dangerous as a frothing shithouse hound, but I think the clock is ticking...tick :twisted: tock :twisted: tick :twisted: tock :twisted:
I'd sure like to see the dems take this one by the horns not stop until the guy is flat in the mud and hogtied, awaiting the first cattle car out of town.....
Gonzalez has to go. He's been a bad AG since day one. Nothing but an immoral crackpot hired to give a sense of legal legitimacy to Shrub-a-dub's illegal moves.
lw
Gonzales is a hack like 99% of the whitehouse staff and appointments but he isn't going anywhere, it seems
QuoteLacking power to end the war immediately, yet seeking to tie Bush up in scandal knots that distracts his attention, and intentions, the Democrats are going after Gonzales, and I have a feeling they're not going to stop even when he leaves his office to spend more time with the billions he's stolen...er, his family...
The demos could have stopped the war at any time by voting against it but they have consistantly voted to continue it. All they are trying to do is score some political points to gain more power next election. I say bullshit to them. I will not play the bad vs worse choice game any longer. The demos had their chance and showed what they were made of.
When Bush leaves it will be over as far as going after him. If need be, the next president will give him a pardon. Far as that goes, he may give himself a pardon before leaving office. Clinton sold something like 150 pardons he signed just on his last day in office.
They might just get Gonzalez yet....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 09_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061400809_pf.html)
Gonzales Meeting With Aide Scrutinized
Justice Dept. Checking For Possible Wrongdoing
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 15, 2007; A01
The Justice Department is investigating whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales sought to improperly influence the testimony of a departing senior aide, two of its senior officials said yesterday, adding a new dimension to the troubles already besetting the nation's chief law enforcement official.
The Justice Department officials, in a letter released yesterday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, said their inquiry into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys includes an examination of a meeting Gonzales held in mid-March with his then-aide Monica M. Goodling, who testified last month that the attorney general's comments during the session made her feel "a little uncomfortable."
The topic of discussion at the meeting was what had happened in the months leading up to firings of the U.S. attorneys, and Gonzales recounted his recollection of events before asking for her reaction, according to Goodling's congressional testimony in May. She said Gonzales's comments discomfited her because both Congress and the Justice Department had already launched investigations of the dismissals.
Goodling's account attracted attention partly because Gonzales had told Congress that he could not remember numerous details about the prosecutors' dismissals because he had purposely avoided discussing the issue with other potential "fact witnesses."
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse repeated yesterday a previous statement by Gonzales that the attorney general never sought to influence Goodling's testimony. A White House spokesman also reiterated that President Bush "fully supports the attorney general," who this week was the target of an unsuccessful no-confidence vote organized by Senate Democrats.
The announcement that Gonzales's conduct would be examined came from Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel of the Office of Professional Responsibility. "This is to confirm that the scope of our investigation does include this matter," Fine and Jarrett said in a letter to Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Fine has the authority to refer cases for possible criminal prosecution if warranted, and both he and Jarrett can recommend disciplinary action for violations of internal ethics guidelines or other rules of professional conduct.
The revelation further expands the publicly known contours of the Justice Department's internal investigation, which is examining the removal of the prosecutors and whether any laws or policies were violated in the hiring of career prosecutors, immigration judges and others.
Gonzales and many of his senior aides have recused themselves from the matter, but some Democratic congressional aides and legal experts said the existence of the inquiry strengthens the argument that an outside prosecutor should be appointed to investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the prosecutor firings.
"It's remarkable that he's under investigation and that he's still attorney general," said Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University School of Law. "At some point, it can no longer be done internally. This cannot be done by Gonzales's subordinates."
In her May 23 appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Goodling testified that the backdrop of her conversation with the attorney general was her prospective decision on whether to transfer to another job or leave the department. "Let me tell you what I can remember," Gonzales said, according to her account. He then asked whether Goodling "had any reaction to his iteration," she said.
Goodling testified that the conversation made her "a little uncomfortable" because of ongoing investigations into the issue -- including one begun several days earlier by the OPR. "I didn't know that it was maybe appropriate for us to talk about that at that point, and so I just didn't," Goodling said. "As far as I can remember, I just didn't respond."
Roehrkasse said yesterday that "the statements made by the attorney general during this meeting were intended only to comfort her in a very difficult period of her life. Because this matter is under investigation, we cannot comment any further."
Gonzales said in testimony before both the House and Senate judiciary committees that he had not talked to potential witnesses about the events surrounding the firings. "I haven't wanted to interfere with this investigation and department investigations," Gonzales said on April 19.
Several legal experts said the federal laws that could apply to wrongdoing such as witness tampering, suborning perjury or obstruction of justice all require evidence of corrupt or improper motives on the part of a potential defendant. Gillers said Goodling's description of her meeting with Gonzales amounts to a "vague narrative" that would potentially pose difficulties for a prosecutor.
"It really depends on what the person's intent was, and you can infer intent from words and conduct and tone," said James A. Cohen, an associate professor at Fordham University Law School and an expert on witness-tampering statutes.
"There is something fundamentally inappropriate about the attorney general of the United States recounting his recollection to a subordinate in this type of situation," Cohen said. "But it may not be subornation of perjury or witness tampering or obstruction of justice."
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
QuoteThe demos could have stopped the war at any time by voting against it but they have consistantly voted to continue it. All they are trying to do is score some political points to gain more power next election. I say bullshit to them. I will not play the bad vs worse choice game any longer. The demos had their chance and showed what they were made of.
When Bush leaves it will be over as far as going after him. If need be, the next president will give him a pardon. Far as that goes, he may give himself a pardon before leaving office. Clinton sold something like 150 pardons he signed just on his last day in office.
I'd like to see the documentation on Clinton "selling" pardons. I question that assertion strongly. As for the Dems stopping the Occupation, they chose to yield to political pressure in continuing the funding through September. I was as pissed off as everyone else. I believe their effort will yield better fruit in the fall.
That said, every time someone says both parties are the same, that there is no difference, I will simply ask this: if Al Gore had taken his rightful place as president in 2000, would the US be occupying Iraq? No. It's really that simple. Would the Occupation have gone on this long if Bush* hadn't controlled the Congress from before 9/11 to January 2007? No. Would Gore be trying to privatize Social Security, or turn millions of immigrants in this country into criminals? No.
The argument that there is no difference is old, is cliched, is wrong, and I accord it no respect any longer. I hear it and it makes me furious. This is a participatory democratic republic! Are you voting? Are you involved? If the Democrats in your view too closely resemble the Republicans, are you starting a third party?
Anyone here on this site, or anywhere else, who is sitting back and waving it all away with a self-righteous sneer is PART OF THE PROBLEM. I'm not just talking about the US. I'm talking about anyone who lives in any human society. We each have an obligation to ourselves as individuals, to our fellow humans, to the world at large.
End the Occupation? Bring justice to all? Save the world from the human-made poisons and garbage harming it? It's in each of our hands. Today. Now. This hour. The next.
Nobody has any right to ignore the good and bad happening in this world. Each of us is obliged to respond. Whether we do or not, and in what numbers, and how, is the great mystery of being human on this physical plane. Nobody can compel anyone to do the right thing, or indeed to define in one way or another what that right thing might be.
But I implore the smart, aware people reading this: we have the power in OUR hands, we CAN make life better for all. There IS hope everywhere, scattered round, waiting to be gathered into an awesome power that could sweep away the iniquitous billionaire multinational corporate criminals in charge. In truth they rule from mountains of sand, and we bear in our numbers and potential the power of the ocean.
Right now, the dems are part of the problem, imo.
And please don't lecture on what might or might not have happened if your pal Gore had only won his home state...... That is a moot point. We have no clue what that alternative universe would have brought, as Gore was unable to see any action short of violence after getting robbed of the presidency.
Have a tissue, brawh...
lw
QuoteI'd like to see the documentation on Clinton "selling" pardons. I question that assertion strongly.
"documentation"??? You have got to be kiddin me. Do you think Clinton is so stupid as to document a crime he commited? He was crooked as they come but not stupid. Just take a look at the people he pardoned and you will get the drift. The vast majority were rich people in a jam, not people deserving of a pardon.
QuoteAs for the Dems stopping the Occupation, they chose to yield to political pressure in continuing the funding through September. I was as pissed off as everyone else. I believe their effort will yield better fruit in the fall.
LOL! "they chose to yield to political pressure" Nice choice of words. They have the power and the votes but they always "choose" to do the wrong thing. As for the dems doing anything about it in the fall, your faith in the demos is almost as strong as lw's faith in GW not being real.
QuoteRight now, the dems are part of the problem, imo.
You've got that right!
QuoteLOL! "they chose to yield to political pressure" Nice choice of words. They have the power and the votes but they always "choose" to do the wrong thing. As for the dems doing anything about it in the fall, your faith in the demos is almost as strong as lw's faith in GW not being real.
I have no choice but to believe that the 2006 elections will reverberate for both major parties. The major progressive groups like Moveon.org have expressed their fury, and their intentions to make it very hard for Dems to run next year who do not step up to end the Occupation. That's why both Hilary Clinton and Obama voted to end it. They are under tremendous pressure from a roused and angry progressive base, and especially in Hilary's case, very obviously moving toward what people are demanding. It is not going to stop and they will continue to move leftward as it goes on.
This is how the Vietnam War ended, it's why Nixon didn't nuke Vietnam for that matter. He saw the millions swelling up to his door, as the old Credeence song goes.
People in massive numbers--going to the polls, staying away, voting for a 3rd party candidate--have effect. But politics is slow, even when there are good people trying to accomplish things. We don't have the votes yet for a bipartisan end to the Occupation, a veto-proof majority. Had they been truly brave, the Dems would have simply said: no more money. They didn't. The corporate media would have played them as denying money to basic needs for troops in the field, however much a lie this is. They turned yellow. They need the Republicans on board. If I didn't believe in this scenario, one many progressive writers are agreeing on, I would not say it here.
My opinion is simple: End the Occupation. Impeach and convict Bush/Cheney. Restore order and justice to the system, as much as its shadowy corporate overlords will allow. I belong to no party because I really don't believe in political parties, esp just two, as the ideal way to govern human affairs.
My faith is in the way the system has of righting itself enough to keep along, I've lived in it for 43 years. I've seen it swing one way then the other, not staying so long at either end.
As for Clinton, a snide remark about pardons does not convince me of anything. Someone could say one of us here deal drugs from his basement because he has long hair, frequents enths websites--it could cause an impression that ends him up in a windowless room begging for justice. I wouldn't do that to anyone, I object when it is done. Show me the documentation, the payoff, I'll listen. Otherwise, it's a wasted remark.
I wrote quite a lot today for just two sentences to be quoted. I'd like to know how others here are opposing the Occupation, pushing for election reforms, for third parties, for social justice, for a human world based on justice for all and loving care of the planet. I see a lot of old school grousing, but I don't see a lot of action. I've been putting myself out more and more of late, contacting my congress persons, marching against the Occupation and in defense of immigration rights, writing online and in print about these matters. It's all well and good to have a lively debate about Iraq or global warming, but it's not enough. I decided I had to do more than just post links, however useful this is for spreading information. I had to take action in fleshspace, put my face in the crowd of agitators and resisters.
I urge people here to do the same and, if you are already, tell us what you're doing and how it is going. We are cursed to live in interesting times, but they are ours, and what are we going to do about it? Just feed, breed, puff, and die? Not me. I challenge each person here to take a louder stand on issues they believe in, and post their efforts here. I will applaud every single one.
We are a powerful community here, but one that sometimes seems half-asleep. No better hour than now to wake up!
Wake up to the Tao, bro.
Gore is a chump like the rest. I'd like to revisit the point you made about Gore having no recourse outside of violence the day he failed to win his home state. That's a cop out, imo. If there is no recourse after the courts except for violence, how did the black folks manage to secure their rights in the 60's peacefully? And how are the gay/lesbo folks who marry going about their bidness? The courts have declared homosexuality a crime in the past in many states. That has not stopped those folks from SEEKING JUSTICE PEACEFULLY...
Do all you like to support this illusion. Its your right. But please don't ask me to come here to pray in public and brag about all the good we're attempting to do for the world. It just makes you sound like a two-bit preacher searching for a congregation..
lw
Yeah, Clinton would never sell a pardon. Sure. And he and Hillary didn't steal everything that wasn't nailed down in the whitehouse when they had to move out. They were worse than a tribe of gypsies. They stole the furniture and rugs on the floor. They took stuff that was there for in some cases over a hundred years. No one would mind if they took what was theirs and the china. They took everything.
They took gifts that heads of state gave to the government. They knew they weren't allowed to take that stuff but they took it anyway. After a lot of pressure was put on them by the justice dept they gave back some but far from most or much of what they stole.
Bush had to wait about 2 months for the white house to be refurnished before he could move in. That's how bad it was. But Clinton wouldnt steal anything or sell a pardon. HAH!
He not only sold pardons but he sold our nuclear secrets for a price. I'll go google the links for you if you want to huff and puff and deny it. He gave a chinese scientist among others access to secret labs. Reagan was crooked too but Clinton raised stealing to an art form. The press was totally uninterested in any of that. That was back before the corporate takeover of the media.
I'll keep preachin', you guys keep kvetching. We make a pretty good team :twisted: