S
Sid9
Guest
March 24, 2007
Gonzales Met With Advisers on Ouster Plan
By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, March 23 - Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior
advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States Attorneys at a
meeting on Nov. 27, 2006, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out,
according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed on Friday.
The previously undisclosed meeting appeared to contradict Mr. Gonzales's
previous statements about his knowledge of the dismissals. He said at a news
conference on March 13 that he had not participated in any discussions about
the removals, but knew in general that his aides were working on personnel
changes involving United States attorneys.
Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told reporters on Friday
evening that Mr. Gonzales's attendance at the hourlong meeting was not
inconsistent with his past remarks.
"He tasked his chief of staff to carry this plan forward," Ms. Scolinos
said. "He did not participate in the selection of the U.S. attorneys to be
fired. He did sign off on the final list."
Ms. Scolinos said the meeting was in Mr. Gonzales's conference room at the
Justice Department. She said the meeting focused on "roll out" of the
dismissals and from available records was not a meeting in which a final
target list was determined.
Another department official said that Mr. Gonzales did not recall the
meeting and that his aides had been unable to determine whether he approved
the dismissal plan at the meeting.
The meeting took place as Mr. Gonzales's aides awaited final White House
approval of a detailed dismissal plan that had been drafted by D. Kyle
Sampson, Mr. Gonzales's chief of staff. His plan was sent to the White House
on Nov. 15, 2006, according to previously released e-mail. Harriet E. Miers,
the White House counsel at the time, approved Mr. Sampson's proposal on Dec.
4, and the dismissals were carried out three days later.
The calendar entry was among more than 280 pages of other Justice Department
documents released on Friday night and seemed likely to provoke further
criticism of Mr. Gonzales in Congress, where Senate and House Judiciary
Committees have authorized subpoenas for sworn public testimony of
presidential aides and senior department officials.
Mr. Sampson, who played a central role in the dismissals, has agreed to
testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Sampson
resigned earlier this month because of what he later said was a failure to
prepare Mr. Gonzales for questions about the ousters.
In another development, Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman,
said on Friday that the department would begin an internal review of the
conduct of lawyers involved in the dismissals. The inquiry will be conducted
jointly by the inspector general, Glenn Fine, and the Office of Professional
Responsibility, a department watchdog unit.
The dismissals have created the gravest crisis of Mr. Gonzales's time in
office, with calls for his ouster from Republicans and Democrats, even as
President Bush has offered the attorney general his firm public support. Mr.
Gonzales has sent reassuring signals to the ranks of prosecutors, but the
strength of his support within the Justice Department is difficult to gauge.
Department officials said there had not been an intentional effort to delay
the release of the new material. Instead, they said, the e-mail messages
were overlooked in past searches of office files and computers. Many, they
said, were copies of e-mail that had already been disclosed. The latest
batch of documents show just how completely the department misjudged what
the reaction would be to the ouster of the prosecutors.
"I think most of them will resign quietly," said Ms. Scolinos, the
department's chief spokeswoman, in a Nov. 17, 2006, e-mail message, a few
weeks before the dismissals. "It's only six U.S. attorneys (there are 94)
and they don't get anything out of making it public they were asked to leave
in terms of future job prospects. I don't see it as being a national story -
especially if it phases in over a few months."
At a news conference earlier this month, Mr. Gonzales was repeatedly
questioned about the extent of his participation in the ouster of the
prosecutors. He said that he was aware that his staff had been evaluating
the performance of different prosecutors, but on several occasions he said
that it was not a matter that he had been following closely.
"So far as I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of
determining who were the weak performers," he said. "Where were the
districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that
district, and that's what I knew."
But describing himself like a chief executive of a major corporation, he
said he was not involved in the details of the performance review effort.
"That is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in
seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going
on," he said. "That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."
Reporters expressed disbelief that as the department's top official, he
would not be closely monitoring such an important matter, and pressed Mr.
Gonzales again to describe his involvement in the effort.
"Many decisions are delegated," he said. "We have people who were confirmed
by the Senate who, by statute, have been delegated authority to make
decisions."
Mr. Gonzales then repeated: "I never saw documents. We never had a
discussion about where things stood. What I knew was that there was ongoing
effort that was led by Mr. Sampson, vetted through the Department of
Justice, to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney
performances around the country."
The latest e-mail shows preparations for the Nov. 27 meeting at 9 a.m. to
discuss "U.S. Attorney Appointments." Department officials said that the
participants at the only formal meeting known to have been held to discuss
the firings, included Mr. Gonzales; Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney
general; Mr. Sampson; Monica Goodling, the department liaison to the White
House; William Moschella, the assistant attorney general for legislative
affairs and Michael A. Battle, then head of the Executive Office of U.S.
Attorneys. Mr. Battle has since resigned and Ms. Goodling has taken a
temporary leave of absence.
Gonzales Met With Advisers on Ouster Plan
By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, March 23 - Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior
advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States Attorneys at a
meeting on Nov. 27, 2006, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out,
according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed on Friday.
The previously undisclosed meeting appeared to contradict Mr. Gonzales's
previous statements about his knowledge of the dismissals. He said at a news
conference on March 13 that he had not participated in any discussions about
the removals, but knew in general that his aides were working on personnel
changes involving United States attorneys.
Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told reporters on Friday
evening that Mr. Gonzales's attendance at the hourlong meeting was not
inconsistent with his past remarks.
"He tasked his chief of staff to carry this plan forward," Ms. Scolinos
said. "He did not participate in the selection of the U.S. attorneys to be
fired. He did sign off on the final list."
Ms. Scolinos said the meeting was in Mr. Gonzales's conference room at the
Justice Department. She said the meeting focused on "roll out" of the
dismissals and from available records was not a meeting in which a final
target list was determined.
Another department official said that Mr. Gonzales did not recall the
meeting and that his aides had been unable to determine whether he approved
the dismissal plan at the meeting.
The meeting took place as Mr. Gonzales's aides awaited final White House
approval of a detailed dismissal plan that had been drafted by D. Kyle
Sampson, Mr. Gonzales's chief of staff. His plan was sent to the White House
on Nov. 15, 2006, according to previously released e-mail. Harriet E. Miers,
the White House counsel at the time, approved Mr. Sampson's proposal on Dec.
4, and the dismissals were carried out three days later.
The calendar entry was among more than 280 pages of other Justice Department
documents released on Friday night and seemed likely to provoke further
criticism of Mr. Gonzales in Congress, where Senate and House Judiciary
Committees have authorized subpoenas for sworn public testimony of
presidential aides and senior department officials.
Mr. Sampson, who played a central role in the dismissals, has agreed to
testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Sampson
resigned earlier this month because of what he later said was a failure to
prepare Mr. Gonzales for questions about the ousters.
In another development, Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman,
said on Friday that the department would begin an internal review of the
conduct of lawyers involved in the dismissals. The inquiry will be conducted
jointly by the inspector general, Glenn Fine, and the Office of Professional
Responsibility, a department watchdog unit.
The dismissals have created the gravest crisis of Mr. Gonzales's time in
office, with calls for his ouster from Republicans and Democrats, even as
President Bush has offered the attorney general his firm public support. Mr.
Gonzales has sent reassuring signals to the ranks of prosecutors, but the
strength of his support within the Justice Department is difficult to gauge.
Department officials said there had not been an intentional effort to delay
the release of the new material. Instead, they said, the e-mail messages
were overlooked in past searches of office files and computers. Many, they
said, were copies of e-mail that had already been disclosed. The latest
batch of documents show just how completely the department misjudged what
the reaction would be to the ouster of the prosecutors.
"I think most of them will resign quietly," said Ms. Scolinos, the
department's chief spokeswoman, in a Nov. 17, 2006, e-mail message, a few
weeks before the dismissals. "It's only six U.S. attorneys (there are 94)
and they don't get anything out of making it public they were asked to leave
in terms of future job prospects. I don't see it as being a national story -
especially if it phases in over a few months."
At a news conference earlier this month, Mr. Gonzales was repeatedly
questioned about the extent of his participation in the ouster of the
prosecutors. He said that he was aware that his staff had been evaluating
the performance of different prosecutors, but on several occasions he said
that it was not a matter that he had been following closely.
"So far as I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of
determining who were the weak performers," he said. "Where were the
districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that
district, and that's what I knew."
But describing himself like a chief executive of a major corporation, he
said he was not involved in the details of the performance review effort.
"That is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in
seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going
on," he said. "That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."
Reporters expressed disbelief that as the department's top official, he
would not be closely monitoring such an important matter, and pressed Mr.
Gonzales again to describe his involvement in the effort.
"Many decisions are delegated," he said. "We have people who were confirmed
by the Senate who, by statute, have been delegated authority to make
decisions."
Mr. Gonzales then repeated: "I never saw documents. We never had a
discussion about where things stood. What I knew was that there was ongoing
effort that was led by Mr. Sampson, vetted through the Department of
Justice, to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney
performances around the country."
The latest e-mail shows preparations for the Nov. 27 meeting at 9 a.m. to
discuss "U.S. Attorney Appointments." Department officials said that the
participants at the only formal meeting known to have been held to discuss
the firings, included Mr. Gonzales; Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney
general; Mr. Sampson; Monica Goodling, the department liaison to the White
House; William Moschella, the assistant attorney general for legislative
affairs and Michael A. Battle, then head of the Executive Office of U.S.
Attorneys. Mr. Battle has since resigned and Ms. Goodling has taken a
temporary leave of absence.
