Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is an ongoing United States political dispute initiated by the unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice. The U.S. attorneys were dismissed without explanation and replaced with interim appointees, under the then-recent provisions of the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization. The dismissed U.S. Attorneys had all been appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate, more than four years earlier. At least two other attorneys were dismissed without explanation or cause in 2005-2006. Twenty-six or more U.S. Attorneys had been under consideration for dismissal during this time period. The firings received attention via hearings in Congress in January 2007 and by March 2007 the controversy had national visibility. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales 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 requested or formally subpoenaed by Congressional committees and subsequently made public.

Critics argue that the scandal has undermined both the integrity of the Department of Justice and the nonpartisan tradition of U.S. Attorneys. Many members of Congress from both parties had called for Attorney General Gonzales's resignation. By mid-September 2007, nine senior staff of the Department of Justice most closely associated with the controversy had resigned, and many DOJ senior officials not directly involved with the controversy had also resigned. The most prominent resignations include:

• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
• Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty;
• Acting Associate Attorney General William W. Mercer 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);
• Chief of Staff for the Attorney General Kyle Sampson
• Chief of Staff for the Deputy Attorney General Michael Elston;
• Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) Michael A. Battle;
• the subsequently appointed Director to the EOUSA, Bradley Schlozman, also the former acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division;
• the Department of Justice's White House Liaison Monica Goodling

As of November 1, 2007, a month and a half after the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales from office, and more than 120 days after the rescinding of the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization clause which had permitted unlimited terms for unconfirmed-by-the-Senate interim attorneys, 23 of 96 U.S. attorney offices were headed by interim or acting U.S. attorneys, and 21 of those offices had no presidential nominee pending for the vacancy.

Issues in brief

The following sections briefly summarize aspects of the controversy. More thorough analyses are further below, or in the related articles.

Changed interim appointment law in 2006

The controversy publicized an unnoticed 2006 change in the law governing appointments of U.S. Attorneys. The re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006 eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys made by the United States Attorney General to fill vacancies. The change gave the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the President, because presidential appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, but the Attorney General's did not require Senate confirmation. Bills to rescind the provision were approved by very large majorities in the Senate and the House prior to the end of March, 2007. Ultimately S.214 was signed into law by the President on June 14, 2007, designated Public Law No: 110-34. The new law specified that all interim attorneys then in office shall serve terms ending 120 days from the signing of the bill. As of June 14, 2007, the Department of Justice had more than twenty United States attorney positions that were not presidential appointees, which are filled by either acting US attorneys (held by civil service first U.S. attorneys) or interim U.S. attorneys appointed by the Attorney general. Terms of district court-appointed interim US Attorneys are unaffected by the new law--there was one when the bill was signed: Paula D. Silsby of Maine, appointed in 2001.

See also: The appointment process for U.S. Attorneys.

Administration rationale unclear

The reasons for the dismissal of each individual U.S. Attorney remain unclear. A suggested motivation is the administration wanted to make room for U.S. Attorneys that were more sympathetic to the administration's political agenda, and to advance promising conservatives. The administration and its supporters say 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. Critics say that the attorneys were fired for failing to prosecute Democratic politicians, particularly in relation to claims of election fraud, or were fired in retribution for prosecuting Republican politicians.

See also: Carol Lam, Rick Renzi, and Paul Charlton

Administration testimony contradicted by documents

Members of Congress investigating the dismissals have found that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials appears to contradict internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remains unclear despite hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and senior DOJ staff in congressional committee hearings. The Bush administration has issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings. The origin and evolution of the list of attorneys to be dismissed remains unclear.

Politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice

Attorney General Gonzales, in a confidential March 1, 2006 order, not published in the Federal Register, formally delegated authority to senior DOJ staff Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson to hire and dismiss political appointees and some civil service positions. On May 2, 2007 the Department of Justice announced that two separate investigations into hirings conducted by Goodling had been initiated several weeks earlier: one by the department's Inspector General, and a second by the Office of Professional Responsibility. In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, Goodling stated that she had "crossed the line" and broke civil service laws regulating hiring for civil service positions, and had improperly weighed political factors in assessing applicants.

In a May 30, 2007 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and Counsel for the Office of Professional Responsibility confirmed that they were expanding their investigation beyond "the removals of United States Attorneys" to also include "DOJ hiring and personnel decisions" by Monica Goodling and other Justice Department employees.

Dismissed attorneys and elections

The controversy surrounding the U.S. Attorneys dismissals is often linked to elections or voter-fraud issues. Allegations are 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. Such allegations have been made by some of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys themselves to suggest reasons they may have been dismissed. 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 a mere announced investigation of a politician. The use of U.S. Attorneys for partisan purposes is highly improper, particularly given the strong non-partisan traditions of the U.S. Attorneys. To date, the evidence supporting the notion that some of the dismissals were motivated by electoral interference remains circumstantial.

See also: Pete Domenici, Heather Wilson, Bradley Schlozman and Don Siegelman

See also: Other related controversies under Bush presidency

Related articles

• For a detailed chronology of events, see: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline
  
• For details about individual dismissed attorneys, see: Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary
  
• For access to released documents, email, and hearing transcripts, see: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents
  
• For descriptions of some of the congressional hearings, see: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings
  

Appointment of U.S. Attorneys and the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization

The appointment process for U.S. Attorneys

The President of the United States has the authority to appoint U.S. Attorneys, with the consent of the United States Senate, and the President may remove U.S. Attorneys from office. In the event of a vacancy, the United States Attorney General is authorized to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney. Before March 9, 2006, such interim appointments expired after 120 days, if a Presidential appointment had not been approved by the Senate. Vacancies that persisted beyond 120 days were filled through interim appointments made by the Federal District Court for the district of the vacant office.

Senate-confirmed appointments to the Department of Justice (DOJ) offices, particularly U.S. Attorneys, are political in nature. Appointments to U.S. Attorney positions are often made in consultation with individual senators of the same party as the President.

For further information:

• Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy#Law references
• United States Attorney#History of interim U.S. Attorney appointments

Revised interim appointment process in March 2006

The USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, signed into law March 9, 2006, amended the law for the interim appointment of U.S. Attorneys by deleting two provisions: (a) the 120-day maximum term for the Attorney General's interim appointees, and (b) the subsequent interim appointment authority of Federal District Courts. (See Law references for the text to the statute (28 U.S.C. § 546), and its amendments.) With the revision, an interim appointee can potentially serve indefinitely (though still removable by the President), if the President declines to nominate a U.S. Attorney for a vacancy, or the Senate either fails to act on a Presidential nomination, or rejects a nominee that is different than the interim appointee.

The change was written into the bill by Republican Senator Arlen Specter when the bill was modified in joint conference committee, reconciling the Senate and House versions of the bill. During Senate hearings on February 6, 2007, Senator Specter stated that Brett Tolman, a committee staffer, had inserted the clause on behalf of the Department of Justice. Specter stated that the change in the law had been partly to address separation of powers concerns expressed by a number of court districts, the issue being the interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys (executive branch) by the courts (judicial branch). The courts had appointed U.S. Attorneys for over a hundred years, however. The Department of Justice had been seeking a way to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval prior to 2005.

On March 20, 2007, the Senate voted 94-2 to re-instate the 120-day term limit on interim attorneys appointed by the Attorney General. On March 26, the U.S. House voted to reinstate the 120-day term limit as well, by a vote of 329-78. The bill was eventually passed in identical form by both houses in May 2007 and was signed into law by the President on June 14, 2007.

Related USA Patriot Act provision

Another change to the laws governing the appointment of U.S. Attorneys concerned the residency requirements. The Patriot Act re-authorization included a provision that allowed U.S. Attorneys to reside outside of their appointed state. William W. Mercer authored the change in the law. He held two positions at the same time, the U.S. Attorney for Montana, and the Acting Associate Attorney General while residing in Washington. D.C. Senator Jon Tester (D,Montana) called for Mercer to resign. In the summer of 2007, Mercer resigned from his Acting Associate Attorney General office, and withdrew his presidential nomination for the same office, and returned to Montana to his other position, U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana.

Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys under previous administrations

By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted. The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party.

A Department of Justice list noted that "in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys." Similarly, a Senate study noted that "Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years."

In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint. Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice, noted in a January 9, 2006, e-mail to Harriet Miers: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision" (underlining original). There is no precedent for a President to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle period of the presidential term in office.

The few examples of forced dismissals available are based on misconduct. The Congressional Research Service investigated the precedent of dismissing U.S. Attorneys over the 25 years 1981-2006 and identified 54 attorneys who did not serve their full 4-year term. Of these, only two were documented involuntary dismissals: William Kennedy in 1982 and J. William Petro in 1984. Both were Reagan appointees. Kennedy was dismissed for "for asserting that the CIA had pressured DOJ to pressure him not to pursue a case," and Petro was dismissed for "disclosing information about an indictment." However, all of the U.S. Attorneys dismissed in 2006 were in office longer than four years, and appointments lasting into a President's second term were beyond the scope of the study. Before 1981, President Carter replaced U.S. Attorney David Marston at the request of Democratic Representative Joshua Eilberg. Marston had been investigating corruption charges against Eilberg and Daniel Flood, another Democratic Representative. The probe continued after the attorney was replaced, however, and Eilberg lost his 1978 reelection bid. Eilberg was eventually sentenced to five years probation and a $10,000 fine, and Flood was censured for bribery by 96th United States Congress.

Administration planning to replace U.S. Attorneys

Alberto Gonzales

In January 2005, deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove asked deputy counsel David Leitch "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." In reply, Kyle Sampson, then Department of Justice counsel to Attorney General John Ashcroft, 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." The White House at one time suggested that the plan for dismissals came from White House counsel Harriet Miers, who left the White House in January 2007 before the dismissal received public attention.

In February 2005, Sampson became Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to Attorney general Alberto Gonzales.

In March 2005, Sampson "came up with a checklist. He rated each of the U.S. attorneys with criteria that appeared to value political allegiance as much as job performance. He recommended retaining 'strong U.S. Attorneys who have... exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.' He suggested 'removing weak U.S. Attorneys who have... chafed against Administration initiatives'".

In September 2005, Sampson became Gonzales's Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice.

Sampson wrote in January 2006 to Miers that he recommended that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys, and that by limiting the number of attorneys "targeted for removal and replacement" it would "mitigat[e] the shock to the system that would result from an across-the-board firing."

On February 12, 2006, Monica Goodling sent a spreadsheet of each U.S. Attorney's political activities and memberships in conservative political groups, in an email to senior Administration officials, with the comment "This is the chart that the AG requested".

(In late February 2006, the White House and the Senate had a minor dispute over the nomination of a U.S. Attorney to Utah. The White House favored Kyle Sampson for the position, while Senator Hatch (R, Utah) favored Brett Tolman. Tolman was eventually nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate.)

Sampson strongly urged using changes to the law governing U.S. Attorney appointments to bypass Congressional confirmation, writing in a September 17, 2006 memo to Harriet Miers: "I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed...It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready to roll immediately...I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments...[By avoiding Senate confirmation] we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House."

In October 2006, George W. Bush told Alberto Gonzales that he had received complaints that some of the U.S. Attorneys had not pursued certain voter-fraud investigations. The complaints came from Republican officials, who demanded fraud investigations into a number of Democratic campaigns. The 2006 United States general election was forthcoming (November) and Republicans were concerned about losing Congressional seats to Democrats. (The election in fact did overturn Congressional control to the Democratic Party.)

Furthermore, "The documents show that in one case, officials were eager to free up the prosecutor’s slot in Little Rock, Ark., so it could be filled by Timothy Griffin, a GOP operative close to White House political guru Karl Rove — at all costs." According to Newsweek, "Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff, developed the list of eight prosecutors to be fired last October—with input from the White House."

On November 21, 2006, Sampson sent an e-mail to an assistant in the Attorney General's office, scheduling a meeting in Gonzales' conference room with senior Justice Department advisors to discuss "U.S. Attorney Appointments." Those asked to be scheduled in the meeting included Gonzales, Sampson, Monica Goodling, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, Associated Deputy A.G. William Moschella, Michael Elston, and Michael Battle. On November 27, 2006, Gonzales met with senior advisors to discuss the plan. The Justice Department did not receive White House approval for the firings until early December. As late as December 2, Sampson had written to Michael Elston that the Justice department was "[s]till waiting for green light from White House" with regards to the firing. Deputy White House counsel William K. Kelley responded on December 4, 2006, stating that "We're a go for the U.S. Atty plan... [the White House office of legislative affairs], political, communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."

On December 7, 2006, Justice Department official Michael A. Battle informed seven U.S. Attorneys that they were being dismissed.

Although seven attorneys were dismissed on December 7, 2006, subsequent disclosures show that three or more additional attorneys were dismissed under similar circumstances between 2005-2006. U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Arkansas had been informed in June 2006 that he was to be replaced, and he resigned, effective December 20, 2006, several days after the public announcement of the appointment of his successor Timothy Griffin.

Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary ()
Dismissed attorney		Effective date of resignation	Federal district	Replacement1
Dismissed December 7, 2006
1.	David Iglesias	Dec 19, 2006	New Mexico	Larry Gomez
2.	Kevin V. Ryan	Jan 16, 2007	Northern California	Scott Schools
3.	John McKay	Jan 26, 2007	Western Washington	Jeffrey C. Sullivan
4.	Paul K. Charlton	Jan 31, 2007	Arizona	Daniel G. Knauss
5.	Carol Lam	Feb 15, 2007	Southern California	Karen Hewitt
6.	Daniel Bogden	Feb 28, 2007	Nevada	Steven Myhre
7.	Margaret Chiara	Mar 16, 2007	Western Michigan	Russell C. Stoddard
Others dismissed in 2006
1.	Todd Graves	Mar 24, 20062	Western Missouri	Bradley Schlozman6
2.	Bud Cummins	Dec 20, 20063	Eastern Arkansas	Tim Griffin5
Dismissed in 2005
1.	Thomas M. DiBiagio	Jan 2, 20054	Maryland	Allen F. Loucks
2.	Kasey Warner	Jul 20054	Southern W. Virginia	Charles T. Miller
1Source: Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys Offices 2Informed of dismissal January 2006. 3Informed of dismissal June 2006. 4Date resignation requested by the Department of Justice is unknown. 5Subsequently submitted resignation on May 30, 2007, effective June 1, 2007. 6Subsequently returned to positions at the Department of Justice in Washington

Reactions and congressional investigation

Main article: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline

January 2007: Initial reaction

The initial reaction was from the senators of the affected states. The U.S. Senate convened for the 110th Congress on January 4 with its new Democratic majority. The Senate Judiciary Committee has oversight over the U.S. Attorneys. In a letter to Gonzales on January 9, 2007 Senators Feinstein (D, California) and Leahy (D, Vermont; 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 Senator Pryor (D, Arkansas), 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, S. 214 and H.R. 580. Feinstein issued a press release about the bill. The initial concern was about the 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 Josh Marshall and his associates on Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo blog.

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.

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." Marisa Taylor, writing for McClatchey Newspapers noted that, "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 Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who is a professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles."

February 2007: The controversy blossoms

The concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein and Pryor were followed up by hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee called by Senator Schumer (D, New York) in February. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6. He underscored that the seven were fired for job performance issues, and not political considerations. 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. McNulty in February called Senator Schumer by telephone to apologize for the inaccurate characterization of the firings. At least six of the seven had recently received outstanding job performance ratings. McNulty testified that Bud Cummins, the U.S. Attorney for Arkansas, was removed to install a former aide to Karl Rove and Republican National Committee opposition research director, the 37-year-old Timothy Griffin. Cummins, apparently, "was ousted after Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, intervened on behalf of Griffin."

However, McNulty's testimony that the attorneys were fired for "performance related issues" caused the attorneys to come forward in protest. Indeed, there is some evidence that the administration was concerned about the attorneys going public with complaints prior to this time.

Salon.com reported: "at 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."

These proceedings were politically charged. At one point Senator Schumer was criticized by Senator Specter (R, Pennsylvania), also on the Judiciary Committee, for having a conflict of interest by being a lead investigator of the affair while also chairing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; such criticism was short-lived.

March 2007: Transition to scandal

Battle resignation

On March 5, 2007 effective March 16, Michael A. Battle resigned his position of Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA).

On March 6, 2007, Gonzales responded to the controversy in an op-ed in USA Today in which he said, "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 corruption 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."

Sampson resignation

On March 12, 2007, Sampson resigned from the Department of Justice. 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 "I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision," Gonzales said. Gonzales admitted that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials.

Gonzales lost more support when records subsequently challenged some of these statements at the March 13 press conference. At that press conference he stated: "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood." But DOJ 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 purge.".

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. Questions were also raised regarding the use of non governmental emails. For example, J. Scott Jennings, an aide to Karl Rove communicated with Justice Department officials "concerning the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released in March, 2007. For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the Republican National Committee, where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher."

Sampson's replacement as the A.G's temporary chief of staff was U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Chuck Rosenberg, who soon initiates a DOJ inquiry into political nature of Goodling's hiring practices for non-political civil service staff. Rosenberg learned of the complaint of Jeffrey A. Taylor, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and his effort to hire a new career prosecutor in the fall of 2006. Taylor went around Monica Goodling, and demanded Sampson's approval to make the hire. The candidate, Seth Adam Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency had been serving as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office. Goodling judged Meinero too "liberal" and had declined to approve the hire.

Calls for Gonzales resignation

On March 14, 2007, Senator John E. Sununu (R, New Hampshire) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Gonzales' resignation. Sununu cited not only the controversial firings but growing concern over the use of the USA PATRIOT Act and misuse of national security letters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. By May 16, at least twenty-two Senators and seven Members of the House of Representatives — including Senators Hillary Clinton (D, New York) and Mark Pryor (D, Arkansas)— had called for Gonzales' resignation. (See Alberto Gonzales#Calls for resignation for further details.)

Executive Privilege claims

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy stated that Congress has the authority to subpoena Justice Department and White House officials including chief political advisor to the president Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. On March 20, President Bush declared in a press conference that his aides would not testify under oath on the matter if subpoenaed by Congress. Bush explained his position saying "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."

Despite the President's position against aides testifying, on March 21 the House Judiciary Committee authorized the subpoena of five Justice Department officials, and on March 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas as well.

Taylor testimony

On July 11, 2007, Sara Taylor, former top aide to Karl Rove, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She was granted the unusual allowance of having her attorney, Neil Eggleston, next to her at the witness table to advise her on which questions she could answer and remain in accord with Bush's claim of Executive Privilege. Throughout Taylor's testimony she refused to answer many questions, saying "I have a very clear letter from [White House counsel] Mr. [Fred] Fielding. That letter says and has asked me to follow the president's assertion of executive privilege." Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) dismissed the claims and warned Taylor she was "in danger of drawing a criminal contempt of Congress citation." Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) took issue with the claim as well, telling Taylor "You seem to be selective in the use of the presidential privilege. It seems like you're saying that, 'Yes, I'm giving you all the information I can,' when it's self-serving to the White House, but not allowing us to have the information to make independent judgment." Leahy added "I do note your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and, to the best of your knowledge, he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House because it seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved." He also said "It's apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels it does not have to explain itself to anyone, not to the people's representatives in Congress nor to the American people." At one point Taylor said "I took an oath and I take that oath to the president very seriously." She was corrected by Leahy who pointed out that her oath had been to uphold the Constitution, "Your oath is not to uphold the president." After she agreed with his statement, Leahy said "We understand your personal loyalty to President Bush. I appreciate you correcting that your oath was not to the president, but to the Constitution. But you also have legal obligations to honor your oath to tell the truth, the whole truth. And failures to produce documents and no recalls, those are very difficult for me to accept as chairman of this committee." Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) told Taylor "You might have been on safer legal ground if you'd said absolutely nothing.... You are between a rock and a hard place. There's no way you can come out a winner. And I don't think any U.S. attorney anywhere, as the appointee of the president, is going to bring a criminal contempt citation. But if this committee asks for one, it will be a big cloud over you, a big smear that'll last the rest of your life."

In summary, Taylor told the Senate that she "did not talk to or meet with President Bush about removing federal prosecutors before eight of them were fired", she had no knowledge on whether Bush was involved in any way in the firings, her resignation had nothing to do with the controversy, "she did not recall ordering the addition or deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired", and she refuted the testimony of Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, that she sought "to avoid submitting a new prosecutor, Tim Griffin, through Senate confirmation."

Contempt of Congress charges

On July 11, 2007, as Sara Taylor testified, it was announced by George Manning, the attorney to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, that Miers intended to follow the request of the Bush Administration and not appear before the Committee the following day. Manning stated Miers "cannot provide the documents and testimony that the committee seeks."

In response to the announcement Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) Chair of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, released a letter saying the decision "could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings." Conyers wrote "I am extremely disappointed in the White House's direction to Ms. Miers that she not even show up to assert the privilege before the Committee. We understand that the White House has asserted privilege over both her testimony and documents, and we are prepared to consider those claims at tomorrow's hearing." Sanchez wrote "It is disappointing that Ms. Miers has chosen to forego this opportunity to give her account of the potential politicization of the justice system.," Sánchez added "Our investigation has shown - through extensive interviews and review of documents - that Ms. Miers played a central role in the Bush Administration's decision to fire chief federal prosecutors. I am hopeful that Ms. Miers will reconsider the White House's questionable assertion of executive privilege and give her testimony on the firing of U.S. Attorneys."

On July 17, 2007 Sanchez and Conyers notified White House Counsel Fred Fielding that they were considering the executive privilege claims concerning a "subpoena issued on June 13 to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, to produce documents." Warning him that "If those objections are overruled, you should be aware that the refusal to produce the documents called for in the subpoena could subject Mr. Bolten to contempt proceedings". The panel then ruled the claims of privilege as invalid on a party-line vote of 7-3.

The White House has consistently refused to provide the sought after documents but has "offered to permit former and current aides to talk with lawmakers behind closed doors -- but without a transcript and not under oath." This offer has been rejected by the Democratic Leadership in the House as unacceptable.

On July 25, 2007 the United States House Committee on the Judiciary voted along party lines 22-17 to issue citations of Contempt of Congress to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. Committee Republicans voted against the measure calling it "a partisan waste of time", while Democrats said "this is the moment for Congress to rein in the administration." White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said of the move "For our view, this is pathetic. What you have right now is partisanship on Capitol Hill that quite often boils down to insults, insinuations, inquisitions and investigations rather than pursuing the normal business of trying to pass major pieces of legislation...now we have a situation where there is an attempt to do something that's never been done in American history, which is to assail the concept of executive privilege, which hails back to the administration of George Washington". Committee Chairman John Conyers said "Unlike other disputes involving executive privilege, the president has never personally asserted privilege. The committee has never been given a privilege log, and there is no indication the president was ever personally involved in the termination decisions." Having passed the Committee the motion goes to the full House where it is unlikely to receive a vote until after Congress's August recess. If the measure passes the full House, the case would be given to the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, who was appointed by Attorney General Gonzales in September 2006. "The administration has said it will direct federal prosecutors not to prosecute contempt charges."

On February 14, 2008 the full United States House of Representatives voted 223-32 to pass the contempt resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

Goodling resignation

On March 26, 2007 it was announced Monica Goodling took leave from her job as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House. Goodling was set to testify before Congress, but on March 26, 2007, Goodling cancelled her upcoming appearance at a Congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. On April 6, 2007, Ms. Goodling announced her resignation from the Department of Justice. She had helped coordinate the dismissal of the attorneys with the White House. Goodling stated in her three-sentence resignation letter to Mr. Gonzales, “May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America.”

On April 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution, by a 32-6 vote, authorizing lawyers for the House to apply for a court order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony, surpassing the required 2/3 majority, and immediately authorized a subpoena for her. On May 11, 2007 U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order granting Goodling immunity 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.

Subpoenas and lost emails

See also: Bush White House e-mail controversy

Karl Rove

On April 10, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for documents from Gonzales that included the full text of all documents that had been partially or completely redacted in the DOJ's previous release of documents. In a letter accompanying the subpoena, Rep. John Conyers (D), the chair of the committee, wrote "We have been patient in allowing the department to work through its concerns regarding the sensitive nature of some of these materials.... Unfortunately, the department has not indicated any meaningful willingness to find a way to meet our legitimate needs...At this point further delay in receiving these materials will not serve any constructive purpose."

The Justice Department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, responded to the subpoena stating that the administration would like "to reach an accommodation with the Congress" but that it might not be possible. "Much of the information that the Congress seeks pertains to individuals other than the U.S. attorneys who resigned.... Furthermore, many of the documents Congress is now seeking have already been available to them for review. Because there are individual privacy interests implicated by publicly releasing this information, it is unfortunate the Congress would choose this option." said Roehrkasse. Later that day a White House spokesman stated that some of the emails that had involved official correspondence relating to the firing of attorneys may have been lost because they were conducted on Republican party accounts and not stored properly. "Some official e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake the White House is aggressively working to correct." said Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman. Stonzel said that they could not rule out the possibility that some of the lost emails dealt with the firing of U.S. attorneys.

CNN reported a larger question concerning the lost e-mails: "Whether White House officials such as political adviser Karl Rove are intentionally conducting sensitive official presidential business via non-governmental accounts to evade a law requiring preservation -- and eventual disclosure -- of presidential records." On May 2, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Gonzales compelling the Department of Justice to produce all email from Karl Rove regarding evaluation and dismissal of attorneys that was sent to DOJ staffers, no matter what email account Rove may have used, whether White House, National Republican party, or other accounts, with a deadline of May 15, 2007 for compliance. The subpoena also demanded relevant email previously produced in the Valarie Plame controversy and investigation for the CIA leak scandal (2003).

Congressional hearings

Main article: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings

See: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents for released documents and hearings transcripts

The United States Congress's House Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary have oversight authority over Department of Justice (DOJ). In 2007 the two committees conducted a number of public and closed-door oversight and investigative hearings on the topic of the dismissal of U.S. attorneys, and DOJ's interactions with the White House and with staff members of the Executive Office of the President. A routine oversight hearing on January 18 2007 by the Senate committee with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was the first public congressional occasion that Gonzales responded to questions about the dismissed attorneys. Through the winter and spring, appearing in more than eleven public committee hearings were a number of key players in the controversy, past and continuing DOJ officials, dismissed U.S. Attorneys, and others. Some individuals appeared at the invitation of the committees, and some appeared only under the compulsion of committee-issued subpoena. One former DOJ official Monica Goodling testified in May 2007, only after the grant of a limited "use" immunity, after reserving the right to not incriminate herself. The two committees made public through their web sites thousands of pages of documents and correspondence that had been subpoenaed from the Department of Justice, individuals, and other organizations.

Status of interim U.S. Attorneys, through June 2007

Gonzales affirmed in his January 18, 2007 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed United States attorney.

As of late May 2007, there were 22 U.S. attorney positions out of 93 that were not held by a presidentially nominated occupant: either acting (filled by civil service First Assistant U.S. Attorneys), or interim (nearly all appointed by the Attorney General). Only four nominees have been submitted by the administration for the 22 positions, though White House spokesperson Tony Fratto was reported saying that the administration is committed to nominating candidates for all 22 positions. Fratto said the number of new nominees "has nothing to do with recent events. The closer you get toward the end of the second term, you're going to have fewer people." David Iglesias, the dismissed New Mexico U.S. attorney, said that the administration is in denial if it doesn't believe there are concerns about low office morale, the ability to remain independent or even the odds of being confirmed by a suspicious Senate controlled by the Democrats.

Timothy Griffin, the interim attorney for Eastern Arkansas, announced in February 2007 that he would not seek a presidential nomination. In early February, Deputy Attorney General McNulty had testified that a vacancy was specifically created for Griffin by dismissing Bud Cummins. Griffin said that he did not believe he would get a "fair consideration" from the Senate.

Interim U.S. Attorneys appointed under the provisions of the Patriot Act Re-authorization were not term limited. Timothy Griffin's continuing term was challenged in court, but Judge G. Thomas Eisele rejected the challenge, finding that Griffin held the position under the USA PATRIOT Act provision that allowed unlimited-term appointments. Under the previous law, Griffin's term would have been limited to 120 days, which would have expired in mid-April 2007. Legislation restoring the term limits to interim U.S. Attorneys (S214) also limits the terms of those interim U.S. Attorneys appointed under the Patriot Act Reauthorization to 120 days from the time of enactment of the legislation, which was June 14, 2007.

Other related controversies under Bush presidency

See also: Bradley Schlozman

Biskupic prosecution of Georgia Thompson

Main article: Georgia Thompson

Under U.S. attorney Steven M. Biskupic in Wisconsin, Georgia Thompson was convicted for corruption charges related to a Democratic governor. The conviction occurred shortly before the 2006 elections and played a role in the election campaigns in Wisconsin. On appeal to the appellate court, however, the charges were thrown out immediately after the short hearing. This extraordinary decision suggested that the original charges were unsubstantiated. Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin has called for investigation in conjunction with current inquiry with the United States Attorney's Office. Biskupic says he will fully cooperate with an inquiry.

In April, Senate Democrats asked whether U.S. Attorney Biskupic was pressured by the White House or the Justice Department to prosecute Georgia Thompson. Biskupic had been on the original list for dismissal, and "had been identified by Rove as weak on prosecuting voter fraud." Jurors defended their verdict, and some Democrats, including former Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, who conducted a parallel investigation, said that Biskupic was not politically motivated. Thompson made no statement to the media.

A former U.S. Attorney who is a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, Frank Tuerkheimer, said he could not recall another case "where an appellate court after hearing oral arguments ordered the release of a person who's confined" that same day. A former Assistant U.S. Attorney who is a Madison lawyer, Chris Van Wagner, predicted a "strongly worded" written opinion telling the government, "You never had enough to get out of the starting gate." Another law professor could think of only one other case where a defendant was freed immediately rather than given a new trial.

The Senate Judiciary Committee delivered a letter to United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking for documents in the case.

Black demotion

On August 8, 2005, the day after a grand jury subpoena of records connected to Jack Abramoff, the Los Angeles Times reported, "U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black." His replacement, Leonardo Rapadas, recommended for the job by the Guam Republican Party, was confirmed without any debate. The investigation of Abramoff in Guam ended when "Rapadas recused himself from the public corruption case involving [Carl] Gutierrez" because "the new U.S. attorney was a cousin of 'one of the main targets'," according to a confidential memo to Justice Department officials."

Yang resignation

On March 21, 2007, Senator Diane Feinstein, D-Calif. said she would inquire into whether Debra Wong Yang, the former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, was forced to leave her job late last year. Yang had previously investigated Rep. Jerry Lewis on the use of earmarks and his relationships with lobbyists and defense contractors. In November, Yang left the DOJ to work at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, the same firm who is defending Lewis in the investigation. Yang has stated that she left on her own accord and there has been no evidence presented that she was forced out for her investigation.

Paulose appointment: protests in Minnesota

Rachel K. Paulose was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney for Minneapolis on March 9, 2006. Paulose had been appointed by Gonzales on February 17, 2006 to serve as interim U.S. Attorney. The departing U.S. Attorney, Thomas Heffelfinger, had resigned effective February 28 2006. Paulose's presidential appointment was confirmed by the U.S. Senate by voice vote on December 9 2006, the last day of the 109th Congress (ending her status as interim appointee). At 34, Paulose is the youngest U.S. Attorney in the country. She had previously served as a Justice Department counsel and special assistant to Gonzales. On April 6, 2007, her top deputies stepped down from their leadership positions and back into their nonsupervisory role within the office to protest the "ideologically driven and dictatorial managerial style" of Paulose. The deputies were John Marti, the top assistant prosecutor; Erika R. Mozangue, chief of the office’s civil division; and James E. Lackner, chief of the office's criminal division.

On April 17, the AP reported that Ms. Paulose had been contacted by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee for voluntary questioning about the firings of eight U.S. federal prosecutors.

Palouse resigned as U.S. Attorney on November 19, 2007 to work on legal policy issues at the Justice Department in Washington. [1]

Prosecution of Don Siegelman

Main article: Don Siegelman

In June 2007 a Republican lawyer signed a sworn statement that she had heard five years ago that Karl Rove was preparing to politically neutralize Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman with an investigation headed by the US Department of Justice.

Siegelman was convicted of 7 of the 35 counts in the 2006 trial (all charges were dismissed in the 2005 trial). Siegelman defenders point out that over 100 charges were thrown out by three different judges, and the investigating US Attorney was the wife of his political opponent. Another Republican activist, lawyer Dana Jill Simpson of Rainsville, Ala., filed a sworn statement saying that she was on a Republican campaign conference call in 2002 when she heard Bill Canary tell other campaign workers not to worry about Siegelman because Canary's "girls" and "Karl" would make sure the Justice Department pursued the Democrat so he was not a political threat in the future. "Canary's girls" included his wife, Leura Canary, who is United States Attorney for United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

On June 28, 2007, Siegelman was sentenced by Mark Fuller to 88 months in federal prison, 500 hours of community service, and will be forced to pay $50,000 in fines and $181,000 in restitution. An appeal bond was denied, which meant that Siegelman was taken into immediate custody. After his jail sentence is served, Siegelman will be released on supervised leave.

Siegelman defenders noted this is unusual because, for example, former Alabama Governor Guy Hunt, a Republican, was found guilty in state court of personally pocketing $200,000. And state prosecutors sought probation, not jail time, in the Hunt case.

"Congressional committees ought to investigate what in the world went on in this case," said Grant Woods, a Republican former attorney general of Arizona. The New York Times noted, "The United States attorneys scandal has made clear that partisan politics is a driving force in the Bush Justice Department," and "There is reason to believe [Siegelman's] prosecution may have been a political hit, intended to take out the state’s most prominent Democrat, a serious charge that has not been adequately investigated." Further, "We hope that the appeals court that hears Mr. Siegelman’s case will give it the same hard look that another appeals court recently gave the case of Georgia Thompson. Ms. Thompson, a low-level employee in a Democratic administration in Wisconsin, was found to have been wrongly convicted of corruption by another United States attorney."

Prosecution of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht

US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan was known for her high-profile prosecutions of prominent democrats such as Sheriff Pete DeFazio, the mayor Tom Murphy, and a County Judge, Joseph Jaffe. She indicted the celebrity coroner Cyril Wecht on a raft of charges, including what his lawyers say was $3.96 worth of faxes, and $1,778.55 worth of gasoline and mileage bills charged to the state.

First Federal Trial of United States vs. Dr. Cyril Wecht

On January 28, 2008, the federal trial against Dr. Cyril Wecht began. The court motions and proceedings documented the controversy that were prevalent throughout the trial. Prior to the trial beginning, the defense team twice appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to have the district judge selected to preside over the trial removed. In the first appeal's court decision, the judge panel ruled 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the judge. In the subsequent proceeding, the appeals body reaffirmed the previous opinion.

Speculation amassed that the prosecution of Dr. Wecht was politically motivated since he was a prominent Democrat in the Pittsburgh area and the announcement of the initial indictment was close to the election date of 2006. The controversy around such charges resulted in Former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, a defense lawyer for Dr. Cyril Wecht, being called to testify before a house panel investigating the US Attorneys' Firing Scandal. Governor Thornburgh testified that he felt the case against Dr. Wecht, a nationally prominent forensic pathologist, “would qualify as an ideal target for a Republican U.S. attorney (Mary Beth Buchanan) trying to curry favor with a department which demonstrated that if you play by its rules, you will advance.” During the trial of Dr. Wecht, the judge barred the defense from raising the arguments that the case was politically motivated. Even though neither the defense nor the prosecution were able to raise the speculation that the case was politically motivated during the trial, jurors informed reporters after the trial that they felt by the close of the trial that the case against Dr. Wecht was politically motivated.

In addition to the controversy around the case being politically motivated, controversy amassed around the credibility of the lead FBI Investigator on the case, Brad Orsini. Agent Orsini had previous disciplinary actions against him that included writing other agents' initials on witness interview reports and signing agents' names to chain-of-custody forms and evidence labels. Dr. Wecht's defense team argue successfully for the agent's personal records to be unsealed and attempted to use the information within the records to argue for the exclusion of evidence obtained by Agent Orsini during the investigation. The attempts by Dr. Wecht's defense team proved unsuccessful. The prosecution opted not to call Agent Orsini or any other investigator as a witness during the trial of Dr. Wecht.

The judge attempted to seat an anonymous jury (an action usually reserved only for cases in which jurors' lives may be threatened such as in an organized crime case). After motions from the defense and news media contested the judge's decision, the judge relented and dismissed the request for the seating of an anonymous jury.

Roughly two weeks prior to the start of the trial proceedings, the prosecution attempted to have 43 of out of the 84 counts against Wecht dismissed without prejudice, yet were overruled by the judge that dismissed the charges with prejudice, which bars the charges from being refiled against Dr. Wecht.

The prosecution's case lasted for twenty four days. Upon the prosecution resting their case, the defense rested without calling a single witness to counter the prosecution's case or witnesses presented. After eleven days of deliberation, the case ended with the jury informing the court for a second time that a decision could not be reached and the judge declaring a mistrial. In response to the judge's decision, the prosecution immediately informed the court they planned to retry Dr. Wecht.

Aftermath of First Federal Trial of United States vs. Dr. Cyril Wecht

Since the mistrial, jurors in the first case against Dr. Wecht have raised concern to reporters about FBI agents contacting them since the trial to schedule meetings with the US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan. When the contact of the jurors by the FBI became public, Dr. Wecht's lawyers filed a motion requesting how the FBI, members of the prosecutor's team, were able to locate the jurors after the trial since the district judge in the case had ruled at the start of the trial that the jurors' names were not to be recorded by either the prosecution team or the defense team. Public concern has risen concerning the case which resulted in Representative Mike Doyle and Representative John Conyers Jr., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, providing statements concerning the prosecution's tactics in the aftermath of the first trial.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS - "I am deeply troubled by reports of FBI agents contacting former jurors who failed to convict Dr. Wecht. Whether reckless or intended, it is simply common sense that such contacts can have a chilling effect on future juries in this and other cases. When added to the troubling conduct of this prosecution, there is the appearance of a win-at-all-costs mentality."

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOYLE "I am very reluctant to intervene in a judicial proceeding - and like most people have watched quietly as the government's case against Cyril Wecht was made - but after seeing news reports from jurors, I have serious concerns about the appropriateness of a retrial.

Specifically, I have concerns about the government's decision to seek a retrial before even interviewing the Wecht trial jurors. Had they done so, they would have learned, as reported by the jury foreman, that a majority of the jurors were voting not guilty on the charges and that many had come to the conclusion that the case was politically motivated.

It also concerns me greatly that the FBI contacted jurors at their homes to request interviews about why they deadlocked. That would be intimidating to just about anyone.

If what is being reported is true, it is my intention to contact the Attorney General's office to ask him to review this case to determine whether justice would be served and taxpayers' money well spent by seeking a retrial."

Public outcry against the continuation of the government's case against Dr. Wecht has continued since the outcome of the first trial. The op-eds in both local papers, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, have both repeatedly called repeatedly for the trial to be dismissed. In response to the negative press coverage, Assistant US Attorney Stalling filed in a government response to the defense team's request to delay the start of the second trial that the government may seek an out-of-town jury to oversee the second trial.

On April 12th, 2008, 33 prominent leaders in the Pittsburgh community sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan requesting that the prosecution dismiss the indictment against Dr. Wecht. Shortly after the press release of this letter, Senator Arlen Spector also publicly recommended against a retrial for Dr. Wecht. The list of individuals who signed onto the letter include prominent members of both the Allegheny Republican and Democratic Party, 9 members of the Allegheny County Council, the former Allegheny County Executive who oversaw Dr. Wecht as county coroner during the indictment period; one of the former U.S. Attorneys for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the position that US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan no holds); current and former members of the United States Congress, and many prominent lawyers and other members of the Allegheny County community. The complete list is as follows:

Edward Abes, Treasurer of the Allegheny County Democratic Party; James Burns, Chair of the Allegheny County Democratic Party; Nicolas Cafardi, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Duquesne University School of Law; John Cleary and member of Allegheny County Council; Ronald Davenport Sr., Chairman of Sheridan Broadcasting Corporation; John P. Defazio, member of Allegheny County Council; James R. Ellenbogen, member of Allegheny County Council; Patrick Fagan, Executive Secretary of Allegheny County Labor Council; Michael J. Finnerty, member of Allegheny County Council; Richard Fitzgerald, Chairman of Allegheny County Council; Dan B. Frankel, Pennsylvania State Representative for the 23rd District; Nicholas W. Futules, member of Allegheny County Council; Amanda Green, member of Allegheny County Council; William Greem, Senior Partner of William J. Green & Associates; Kenneth C. Greiner, Business Manager of Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union 12; Donald J. Guter, Dean of Duquesne University School of Law; Melissa Hart, Former Member of the United States Congress; Heather Heidelbaugh, Esquire; Elsie Hillman, Former Chair of Republican Party of Allegheny County; Billy Jackson, Filmmaker; Jerry Johnson, Former U.S. Attorney of the Western District of Pennsylvania from 1981 to 1989; Louis Kendrick, Former Pittsburgh City Councilman; Bob Macey, member of the Allegheny County Council; John McIntire, WQED-TV commentator; Tom Murphy, Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh from 1994 to 2005; Ralph R. Reiland, Associate Professor of Economics for Robert Morris University; William Russell Robinson, member of Allegheny County Council; Jim Roddey, Chair of Republican Party of Allegheny County and Former Allegheny County Executive; Evans Rose, Esquire; June Schulberg, Esquire; Celeste Taylor, Co-Chair of Black Political Empowerment Program; James Treher, Retired FBI Special Agent; and

Sala Udin, Former Member of Pittsburgh City Council

After the prosecution release a letter by one of the jurors stated that the jury was in favor of convicting Dr. Wecht on 14 counts 6-5, five members of the jury from the first trial held a press conference to discuss the jury deliberations on April 28th, 2008. The jurors stated the final split was 8-to-3 in favor of acquittal on 27 counts charging Dr. Wecht with using a county fax machine and the U.S. mail in a scheme to defraud county taxpayers. The jurors confirmed the statements of the juror disclosed in the letter disclosed by the prosecution that they were split 6-to-5 to convict on 14 other allegations that Dr. Wecht charged private clients inflated or bogus travel expenses and that he misappropriated more than $5,000 a year of county resources for personal use. Overall, the five jurors stated they believed that Dr. Wecht made mistakes but that they, the jurors, were not convinced Dr. Wecht meant to cheat taxpayers -- a necessary element to find him guilty. One juror stated during the press conference, "We just could not find any intent to defraud in any shape or form. We truly did try. We went through count by count by count. ... It's just time to let everything go." These viewpoint seems to demonstrate that the jurors agreed with the defense argument that the actions at issue in the case were civil matters of improper bookkeeping that did not contain the necessary criminal intent or malice needed for the criminal charges. Even with these statements, the prosecution has continued steadfast with their decision to retry Dr. Wecht on the 41 criminal charges.

When the five jurors were questioned on whether they thought politics drove the prosecution, an argument defense lawyers were prohibited from making during the trial, they responded that they did view it as an impact on the decision in the case on part of the prosecution. One juror stated to the press, "I don't know if they were political or not, but the motivation was definitely less than pure." The jurors then questioned what seemed to them to be a one-sided investigation, an excessive amount of court documents that seemed more about "quantity than quality," and prosecution witnesses -- including a nun -- who were sympathetic to the defense. The nun, Sister Grace Ann Geibel, the former president of Carlow University, disputed a government claim that Dr. Wecht traded corpses from the county morgue to Carlow in exchange for free lab space to work on private cases.

The second trial was expected to start in May 27, 2008; however on May 8th, a three panel judge body of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals composed of Judges D. Brooks Smith, D. Michael Fisher and Franklin S. Van Antwerpen issued an indefinite stay in the trial proceedings. The stay is to provide the Third Circuit Court of Appeals time to review an appeal on the motion for dismissal by the defense that was denied by the district judge. The motion for argues that Wecht can not be retried due to double jeopardy as a result of the judge not following federal procedures. The procedures violated were that the judge failed to poll jurors individually to ensure they were, in fact, deadlocked, failed to ask the attorneys if they consented to a mistrial, failed to show the attorneys the final note from the jurors that said they were "essentially" deadlocked, and failed to question the jury foreman. Wecht's attorneys also argued in their motion that the judge acted inappropriately by asking the prosecution -- while the first jury was still present -- if it would retry Dr. Wecht.

Law references

Part of the governing federal law for appointing United States Attorneys.

Statute, prior to March 9, 2006 USA PATRIOT ACT Re-authorization Act's amendments, and after June 14, 2007, when S.214 was signed into law

United States Code, Title 28 § 546. Vacancies

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.

(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of—

(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or

(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.

(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

28 U.S.C. § 546 (2000 ed., Supp IV).

USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization

SEC. 502. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.

Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:

'(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.'

Statute from March 9, 2006 through June 14, 2007

United States Code, Title 28 § 546. Vacancies

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.

(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.

28 U.S.C. § 546 (2007). (Note that published versions of the United States Code usually run two years behind recent legislation.)

See also

• Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline
• Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary
• Executive privilege
• Bush White House e-mail controversy
• Movement to impeach George W. Bush

References and external links

Released Administration documents

• Further information: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents

• House Judiciary Committee home page with links to documents (PDF) related to controversy. Some of the pdfs released by the House are text-searchable. However, the 3,000 pages released on 3/19/07 are not. Text-searchable versions of these documents.

• Documents: Congressional Probe Into U.S. Attorney Firings (a comprehensive repository) U.S. and World Report (Posted March 20, 2007. Updated April 30, 2007. Retrieved May 17, 2007.)

• Links to documents released on 3/23/07. McClatchy Newspapers.

U.S. House and Senate Judiciary committees and hearings

• Further information: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings

• "Is the DOJ Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?". Senate Judiciary Committee hearing February 6, 2007.

• "Consideration of issuing subpoenas to former United States Attorneys". House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. March 1, 2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Hearings and press conferences: video recordings

• Links to C-SPAN recordings of hearings and press conferences

Commentary, analysis, time lines

• Further information: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline

• Taylor, Marissa (June 18, 2007). "A Q&A for the U.S. Attorneys saga". McClatchy Washington Bureau. McClatchy Newspapers. Retrieved 2007-06-20. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas Bush's Monica Problem: Gonzales, the president's lawyer and Texas buddy, is twisting slowly in the wind, facing a vote of no confidence from the Senate. Newsweek, June 4, 2007.

• Gerson, Stuart M. (March 14, 2007). "Inside the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys Controversy". Washington Post Live Online (discussion transcript). Washington Post Companies. Retrieved 2007-05-29. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Stuart Gerson was Clinton's Acting Attorney General, in 1993, a holdover from G.H.W.Bush administration, in office until Janet Reno was confirmed.

• Washington Post in-depth coverage site on firings: "Special Reports: U.S. Attorney Firings Investigation". WashingtonPost.

• Inside the U.S. Attorneys Emails: Major Players and Themes Wall Street Journal (review of the most significant of the emails).
• Allegra Hartley Timeline: How the U.S. Attorneys Were Fired U.S. News and World Report April 18, 2007.

Articles and books

• Eggen, Dan (January 19, 2007). "Prosecutor Firings Not Political, Gonzales Says". Washington Post. pp. Page A02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Eisenstein, James. Counsel for the United States: U.S. Attorneys in the Political and Legal Systems. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. 1978.

• Johnston, David (January 17, 2007). "Justice Dept. Names New Prosecutors, Forcing Some Out". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Kane, Paul and Dan Eggen (March 9, 2007). "Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys". Washington Post. pp. Page A01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Article on the hearings.

• Kelman, Laurie (March 1, 2007). "Dems Seek Testimony From Fired Attorneys". Washington Post. Associated Press. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Kiel, Paul (March 1, 2007). "BREAKING: House Committee to Subpoena Ousted Prosecutors". TPMmuckraker.com (news blog). {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Thornton, Kelly and Onell R. Soto (January 12, 2007). "Job performance said to be behind White House firing". San Diego Union Tribune. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

• Vicini, James (March 13, 2007). "Justice aide resigns over prosecutor firings". Reuters. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Wire article on Congressional supoenas issued to attorneys.
• Murray Waas. "Administration withheld Emails about Rove" National Journal, May 10, 2007.
• Whitford, Andrew B. "Bureaucratic Discretion, Agency Structure,and Democratic Responsiveness: The Case of the United States Attorneys." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 12, No. 1: 3-27 (2002). Public Management Research Association.

US Attorneys controversy references

• Profiles of the Gonzales Seven, plus One ePluribus Media
• U.S. Attorneys Archives Talking Points Memo Muckracker
• U.S. Attorneys McClatchy Washington Bureau, McClatchy Newspapers.
• U.S. Attorney Firings Investigation Washington Post
• US Attorneys News Reference HavenWorks.com
• United States Attorneys New York Times
• The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok ePluribus Media