Legal Memo Confirms White House Led Effort To Target And Remove U.S. Attorneys

[kpete]

Legal Memo Confirms White House Led Effort To Target And Remove U.S. Attorneys

Today, White House counsel Fred Fielding released a letter http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/fielding-exec-priv/ informing Congress that President Bush will assert executive privilege over White House documents relating to the firing of U.S. attorneys. Fielding attached a legal memorandum written by Solicitor General Paul Clement, laying out the legal basis for the executive privilege claim.

Clement reviewed the documents that the Congress subpoenaed. In his letter, Clement reveals what investigators have suspected from the very beginning — that the White House was intimately involved in the attorney scandal. After examining the White House communications documents, Clement writes:

Among other things, these communications discuss the wisdom of such a proposal, specific U.S. Attorneys who could be removed, potential replacement candidates, and possible responses to congressional and media inquiries about the dismissals.

The White House had “said that Mr. Bush’s aides approved the list of prosecutors only after it was compiled.” President Bush himself said that “the Justice Department made recommendations, which the White House accepted” regarding the removal of the attorneys.

On a related point, Marcy Wheeler http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/freds-fuck-you-.html writes that it is a serious conflict of interest for Clement to be advising Bush to assert executive privilege in the very same scandal that Clement is supposed to be investigating.

Paul Clement, as you’ll recall, is the guy currently in charge of any investigation into the US Attorney firings, since Alberto Gonzales recused himself some months ago. He’s the one who technically oversees the Office of Special Counsel investigation into whether politics played an improper part in Iglesias’ firing or the hiring of career employees in DOJ, he’s the one who oversees the joint Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General investigations into whether anything improper–including obstruction of justice–occurred in the hiring and firing of USAs. And now, he’s the guy who gets to tell the President that he doesn’t have to turn over what might amount to evidence of obstruction of justice in the Foggo and Wilkes case, among others.

more at:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/28/clement-letter/

[PDJane]

1. Tried to chart a course of cooperation?

When?? I missed that attempt entirely......

[Jackpine Radical]

16. I think that means the White House demanded that Congress cooperate

with the various coverups and stonewall projects.

[MsKandice01]

2. What the FUCK is it going to take?!?!?!

These assholes are running roughshod all over the Constitution and they're completely getting away with it!

And after these last few months, anyone who blames this administration's problems on incompetence is a fool. This is NOT incompetence, everything has been completely deliberate. Looking at the way that they've been maneuvering around Congress, they are quite good at what they do. They've got all their ducks in a row to make it so the ONLY way they can be held accountable and subject to oversight is if they're impeached. Impeachment needs to be on the table NOW.

[tbyg52]

12. It's unbelievable, isn't it?

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. They are common criminals, they've virtually destroyed the Constitution, and it looks like they are probably going to get away with it unless things change.

All I can do is wait for 2008 (if they don't steal it again) and call my Representative at least twice a week just to harp on this. Well, I guess I could try to start or find a local group. Doesn't seem likely in my area, but I guess I could try.

[L. Coyote]

19. What we need now is more evidence that Bozo was never elected.

Has anyone looked into Florida caging in 2000? Any other ideas?

[tbyg52]

26. Anybody who is paying atteniont

already knows they were both stolen. And *still* nothing happens.

[flyarm]

30. YEAH HOW ABOUT GOING AFTER JEB?? who gave the feds these lists

really someone needs to file charges against Jeb!! he is now a civilian.. how did Griffin who wasn't a us attorney get the lists to cage in florida??

then file a suit against Jeb..and make him sing like a bird..after he is charged...but we all know this all takes time..

but can't * and cheney be impeached after they leave office as well??

fly

[L. Coyote]

34. This is a democracy. You and I can access voter lists. No big deal there.

What I want to know, and this is very relevant to a close election like Florida 2000, is:

"For how long has the voter caging in Florida gone on?"

The outcome of the Florida 2000 election is the turning point in American history. How many voters were purged? Who did it?

The very legitimacy of the Bush presidency rides on this election, the recounting, and the court decisions. If the installation of Bush is shown to be illegitimate in 2000, that has bearing today.

Likewise with Ohio in 2004. While that's under investigation, it cannot do harm to study that election further also.

[ClintonTyree]

24. Reminds me of an old quote I believe is attributed to Einstein....

"The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance". That these two qualities, in combination, are in no short supply within the Bush administration is truly alarming. It's past time for Congress to rein in these monsters.

[blogslut]

3. kiiiick

:)

[Demeter]

4. Not Much of a Cover Up, Is It?

the blanket's too short, and when they try to cover their noses, their feet stick out.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. kick

[galloglas]

6. Maybe Bush wants to have the whole Presidential experience...

Which for some, like his predecessor, includes an impeachment.

Maybe he is just bored and wants to "see the Elephant". Like a kid at a theme park, he wants to ride all of the rides. What a poor excuse for a human!

Then again, humans are homo sapiens (sapiens meaning intelligent), so perhaps Bush is not a human after. Could someone close down the holodeck after I leave?

Edit for sloppy typing and distracted grammar.

K and R

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. K & R - needs much more coverage than it's going to get by the corporate

lapdog press

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5227518&mesg_id=5227518

[Duer 157099]

9. hehe, MSNBC is the only one with fleas

who are the fleas?

[lonestarnot]

29. hmmmmmf. The news is under here somewhere.

[Nothing Without Hope]

59. LOL!!! But it needs to have Paris Hilton on top of the pile! n/t

[Rambis]

8. kick

:kick:

[ellenfl]

10. sounds to me like clement is squealing on his boss, in a

backhanded sorta way.

ellen fl

[Turn CO Blue]

11. Could Clement be disbarred for this type ofconflict of interest?

It seems to be clearly unethical, nonlawyerly behavior to me. But I'm the farthest thing from a legal expert. So, if anyone had the wherewithal to actually pursue it, is this act in and of itself (heading an investigation and ALSO advising clients who are the target of the investigation) a "disbarrable" offense?

[thereismore]

13. Absolutely K&R! We now know what was suspected! nt

[Supersedeas]

14. And the network media is exercising Coulter level journalism

[Hubert Flottz]

15. Taxation without representation?

Intolerable Acts?

King George?

Tea Time?

[creeksneakers2]

17. Too much time has been wasted

trying to negotiate with the White House. Democrats should take the contempt route immediately.

[robinlynne]

18. This is front page news!

[Imagevision]

20. Now we know why there isn't a way in hell Bush can afford to give the documents, it

will implicate him & Cheney. Which is why it's imperative the American people are informed of exactly the tactics and law breaking this administration has been guilty of from day one!

[lovuian]

21. Incredible its not like there isn't too much evidence

to get these guys

[Richard Steele]

22. It just never ends with these people. nm

[19jet54]

23. More Rocket Science....

... yea, duh!

[enough]

25. K&R

[Highway61]

27. All I know

Is if congress doesn't do anything TODAY and push back we're all done. Time for them to get a serious backbone...no room for caving on this one.

[WillyT]

28. K & R, Baby !!!

:kick:

[flyarm]

31. k&r!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tigress DEM]

32. I feel sick.

:eyes: :puke:

[Imagevision]

33. Bush hiding subpeoned documents worse then Nizon erasing 18 minutes of audio tape

This administration secrets make Watergate look like, I'll just state it far exceeds the Watergate scandal. When it comes to allowing the American people to know how it's government is working, Bush/Cheney scream national security - national security, Cheney removes his house from being shown on Google-Earth because someone may be identified coming and going??

[benld74]

35. We need sum bipartiship-ism-arian-ism-ship stuff

[blackbartroberts]

36. Who cares?

Why does it matter who took part in the firings or what the
reasons for the firings were? 

As I understand it The President can fire US attorneys for any
reason or no reason at all. 

[Bridget Burke]

38. Quite a few of us care.

US Attorneys are generally appointed by incoming administrations. Firing a bunch for political reasons is not common.

Besides, why is the Bush Gang trying to hide what you consider normal practice? Nixon should arise from his grave & let them know that The Coverup Will Get Them.

[blackbartroberts]

40. Being uncommon does not make it illegal

I don't know how common the practice is or isn't. I know at
one point Clinton had Reno fire 93 US attorneys.

I don't know why Bush wants to keep record secret. If I were
him I would have just said I fired them because I don't like
them. 

My point is firing the attorneys is not a crime so why get so
worked up about it. US attorneys are subject to removal by the
President at any time during his term, not just at the
beginning of a term.

If the goal is to get rid of Impeach Bush it seems to me that
all this energy would be better directed toward a topic where
there may actually be an underlying crime. I can't imagine an
impeachment based upon a President doing something uncommon
although perfectly legal.

[Bridget Burke]

43. When did Clinton have Reno fire 93 US attorneys?

US attorneys are appointed at the beginning of each administration. There is a regular turnover.

From Wikipedia, but referenced:

The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is an ongoing political dispute initiated by the unprecedented dismissal of seven United States Attorneys by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) on December 7, 2006, and their replacement by interim appointees under provisions of the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization. The dismissed U.S. Attorneys had all been appointed by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate, more than four years earlier. Other attorneys were similarly dismissed in 2005-2006; at least 26 U.S. Attorneys had been under consideration for dismissal during this time period. The controversy began in Congress in January 2007 and by March 2007 was receiving attention nationwide. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has stated that the U.S. Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president" and described the affair as "an overblown personnel matter."

Congressional investigations have focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations are that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters. Clear explanations for the dismissals remain elusive, however, with several administration officials providing contradictory testimony or testimony contradicted by documents subpoened by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

I think that Impeachment ought to be reserved for graver offenses--such as lying the country into a hopeless war.

People just want to know what this secretive administration is up to.

[blackbartroberts]

47. March 1993

LOL. You just love to bring any topic of discussion back to
Iraq don't you? LOL

In March of 1993 all 93 US attorneys were simultaneously
dismissed by the Clinton Administration.

You like to cite the Wall Street Journal so here you go:

"At the time, President Clinton presented the move as
something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are
routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have
not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals
were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald
Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the
previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as
their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership
within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

[Bridget Burke]

51. Clinton was inaugurated in January 1993.

So he got all new US Attorneys--as is standard practice.

As the prosecutor purge scandal continues to become more serious and more damaging for the Bush gang, the right has struggled to come up with a coherent defense. They seem to have embraced one, but it’s surprisingly weak.

Karl Rove got the ball rolling last week: “Look, by law and by Constitution , these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think 128 U.S. attorneys — that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123. I mean, this is normal and ordinary.” .....

Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta told ThinkProgress last week that the entire argument is “pure fiction.”

Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.

www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html

Try again.

[blackbartroberts]

54. I am well aware of when Mr. Clinton became POTUS

Nothing you just said contradicts anything I said. Clinton did
in fact replace all 93 US Attorneys at one time. I don't have
a problem with that. Doing so was his right as POTUS.

I never claimed Bush's actions were normal or abnormal. I
simply pointed out that they were perfectly legal as were
Clinton's.

The point is it doesn't matter whether the fired attorneys
received positive reviews or not. US Attorneys can be fired
for any reason or NO reason. Even if a Clinton official could
be taken at his word it doesn't matter if the attorneys were
fired for "pure political retribution." It is
perfectly legal for a President to fire a US Attorney for
"pure political retribution. 

I think Bush has been pretty dumb the way he has handled the
situation, but people looking to hang Bush for breaking a law
are barking up the wrong tree with this US Attorney thing.

So you are welcome to try again since you have yet to disprove
any of my statements on this topic.

[On the Road]

46. What Makes it Illegal

is that they were fired for illegitimate reasons.

Clinton fired and replaced all US attorneys. That is acceptable.

Bush chose those who were either pursuing politically inconvenient prosecutions (like Cunningham and Foggo) or failing to pursue baseless prosecutions (like the voter fraud cases that were thrown out).

That completely undermines the independence of the prosecutors and where it was done to take the pressure off Republicans amounts of obstruction of justice.

[blackbartroberts]

50. Wrong

There is no such thing as an illegitimate reason for firing US
attorneys. There may be morally objectionable reasons, but no
illegal reasons.

US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be
fired for any reason or no reason.

Who says Clinton didn't fire all 93 attorneys to cover up the
fact that his real interest was getting rid of the attorneys
investigating Whitewater etc? Maybe Clinton was just smarter
about this than Bush was? Either way, neither of them did
anything illegal in dismissing the attorneys.

[On the Road]

53. It's Difficult to Believe That Even the Most Partisan Person from Either Party

would repeatedly defend the position that firing individual prosecutors for political reasons is in any way defensible. From Josh Marshall:

So now six of the former US Attorneys have come to Capitol Hill to provide testimony. Two of the six have alleged clear instances in which members of Congress or their aides tried to pressure them into either pursuing or hastening corruption investigations against Democrats. A shadow hangs over the circumstances of the firings of the remaining four -- particularly that of former San Diego US Attorney Carol Lam who was in the course of pursuing one of the biggest corruption investigations in US history when the ax fell.

If this were a preliminary hearing or a grand jury and we were trying to ascertain whether probable cause existed to move on to a full investigation I don't think there's any question that the burden would have been met in today's hearings.

In this case, that means a full investigation. The prosecutors themselves can only speculate -- based on various pieces of evidence -- about why they were fired. The people who know are in the Justice Department and in the White House. Most awkwardly, for a congressional investigation, they're in Congress itself.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012858.php

What shows the political nature even more clearly is the type of baseless prosecutions which were pursued:

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired after Sen. Pete Domenici, who had been unhappy with Iglesias for some time, made a personal appeal to the White House, the Journal has learned.

Domenici had complained about Iglesias before, at one point going to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before taking his request to the president as a last resort. The senior senator from New Mexico had listened to criticism of Iglesias going back to 2003 from sources ranging from law enforcement officials to Republican Party activists.

---snip

In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out. Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/special/554986nm04-15-07.htm

That is precisely the type of politically influenced firing which is not supposed to happen under an idependent DoJ. There is a reason that the White House and Gonzalez have gone to enormous lengths to avoid the impression that the firings were political in nature. Because that is not defensible, and may not be survivable.

[On the Road]

56. Here's an Even More Clear and Damaging Incident:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x37238

[Marrak]

37. I need some psychotropic mood condiments...

otherwise I may decide to storm the Bastille...
:wtf:

[Bitwit1234]

39. Since a private citizen can sue a president (reference Paula Jones)

What is to stop a private citizen from suing the president, vice president et al in reference to his not revealing criminal activities the public requests.

In the long run, bush and cheney are servants of the people. They were not hired. They were elected (and there is doubt to that) and as such should serve the public.

What's the legal precedent. Paula Jones got to sue President Clinton for a charge that the president did not admit to but agreed to pay her off to make it go away.

[blackbartroberts]

41. There is no crime to cover up regarding the attorney firings

A President can fire US Attorney for any reason or no reason.
There is no criminal activity with this story to reveal. Bush
could have fired them just because he thought they smelled
funny and it would still be completely legal. 

[OzarkDem]

42. Vote caging

voter suppression, etc. Anyone who was prevented from legally casting a ballot because of the illegal methods these people used to remove their name from voter registration rolls would have a case.

[blackbartroberts]

45. Possible voter suppression does not make attorney firings illegal

If you think there was a problem regarding voter suppression
or fraud shouldn't you build your case around the facts of
that suppression or fraud. Why detract from the credibility of
your complaint by crying about the President doing something
that is perfectly legal?

If your point is that some of the fired attorneys may have
been involved in   or have information about your alleged
voter suppression/fraud call them as witnesses in your case. I
would think getting fired would make them more likely to by
sympathetic to your case against the President.

[OzarkDem]

48. You think voter caging was legal?

Sorry, no it isn't. And neither is firing attorneys who might object to it.

Yes, a voter whose rights were violated by caging would be able to make a case in court and also claim it was made possible by the illegal actions of the Bush WH to install USA's who they knew would protect it.

[blackbartroberts]

49. Try to pay attention

I never said voter caging was legal. I said you are detracting
from your case about voter caging by raising hell about
perfectly legal attorney firings.

Regarding firing attorneys that might object to voter caging
you are wrong. US attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the
President" and they may be fired for "any reason or
no reason."

You may have legitimate moral objections to the reasons behind
the firings, but that still does not make them illegal. You
are hurting your own cause by barking up the wrong tree.

[EST]

52. Now that you've had your questions answered, are you convinced

and reassured?
The Clinton USA firings were the normal, incoming regime change, just as bush did when when he arrived at the oval office and that has no bearing or relationship with the current imbroglio involving USA firings. That's the whole, complete story on that particular pox-noise talking point, so that question should never come up again.

"At the pleasure of the president-" This is not a legal or constitutional description of anything, although it is a right wing talking point that has devolved into an almost mythical directive. It has no relationship with reality and most assuredly is not part of the US constitution, in spite of the fact that a plethora of winger commentary has convinced a number of the gullible that it is.

"The president can fire them for any reason at all or no reason at all..." another often-quoted affront to truth with no base in reality.
First, the president cannot fire them for an illegal reason. They cannot be fired because they refuse to prosecute in the absence of evidence or because they did not follow the champions of election fraud down the path to republican nirvana.
The reasons given for firing of these usas must be legal and consistent, with the "no reason at all" being the one for which disgust at the wasting of needed public funds, for no apparent reason except a cinc's irascibility, would lead to pillorying of said idiot in chief.

You can't idly do such momentous things, from the public uproar created by such peevish activity to the upset and destruction created in the lives of those most directly and immediately affected: the usas, their families and those of the supporting personnel.

I hope this puts an end to it! No! The president cannot fire the attorneys for any reason at all or no reason at all, and, no Bill Clinton did not to it too and thus take the heat off bushgang.

[blackbartroberts]

55. Not attacking Clinton

As I have said, Clinton was well within his rights to dismiss
those attorneys. Just as Bush was within his rights to dismiss
these attorneys. They both did the same thing. For different
reasons perhaps, but both actions were legal.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000541----000-.html

"§ 541. United States attorneys

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each
judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term
of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States
attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office
until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the
President. "


Note provision (c). Note that there are no conditions attached
to provision (c). The only recourse I could see regarding
these firings would be if it could be proven that the
attorneys were fired because they were part of a protected
group under the Civil Rights Act. If Bush fired them because
they were black there might be a case.

I understand that "at the pleasure of the President"
and "for any reason or no reason" are not in the
constitution. These terms are the commonly used vernacular of
the Federal Government now as they were in the Clinton years
and before. 

So, yes I am convinced despite the fact that nobody has been
able to intelligenty answer any questions. The President was
within his legal rights to fire those attorneys. 

[On the Road]

44. This is Getting Somewhere Now,

push it, push it, push it. Reframe and resubmit the subpoenas. Take it to the courts. Do whatever it necessary. Public opinion is against Bush now. This is a winning line of attack.

[malaise]

57. The gig is up

Hence it's time for some more terra terra terra.

[MiniMe]

58. We can't show you the memos because it will prove how guilty we are

I believe that is the translation.