Unhappy Bush Says Firings Not Political: President: Gonzales Has `Got Work to Do’
By Mark Silva, Chicago Tribune
Mar. 15–WASHINGTON — President Bush, his trip to Latin America disrupted by a firestorm over the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, said Wednesday he is “not happy” with the Justice Department’s public explanation of the firings and added that Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales has “got work to do” to repair relations with Capitol Hill.
Bush insisted he had not lost confidence in Gonzales, but his attempt to deflect criticism of the White House’s involvement in the firing of the U.S. attorneys last year is likely to increase pressure on the attorney general, a longtime friend from Texas, who faces calls for resignation from leading members of Congress.
That pressure was ratcheted up late in the day when Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire became the first congressional Republican to publicly urge Bush to fire Gonzales. “I think the president should replace him,” Sununu said in a statement.
The president, who signed off on the Justice Department’s dismissal of the federal prosecutors, maintained that he did not get involved in whether to fire individual prosecutors. “U.S. attorneys and others serve at the pleasure of the president,” Bush said. “Past administrations have removed U.S. attorneys–their right to do so.”
Critics concede that the president does have the right to fire U.S. attorneys. But doing so for political reasons, to aid an ally or because of displeasure with specific investigations–as critics claim the Bush administration did–could be politically volatile. And rarely has a group of U.S. attorneys been dismissed at once during the middle of a presidential term, as opposed to when a new administration assumes office.
The clash is likely to escalate, as leading Democrats said Wednesday they plan to summon Karl Rove, Bush’s top political aide, to testify before Congress. Gonzales also is expected to testify.
‘Not happy about it’
Bush, during a news conference in Mexico at the close of a five-day Latin American tour, referred to Gonzales’ admission Tuesday that “mistakes were made.” Bush said, “He’s right, mistakes were made. And I’m, frankly, not happy about it, because there is a lot of confusion over what really has been a customary practice by the presidents.” Bush made it clear that while he was upset with the communication about the matter, he stood behind the firings themselves.
Although Bush denied any political motivation in the firing of the prosecutors, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) plans to subpoena Rove. But Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Senate majority whip and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Gonzales and Rove should be compelled to testify before the committee about their roles in the dismissals and the broader question of political interference with U.S. attorneys.
“There are two people who need to appear before Congress and very quickly: Atty. Gen. Gonzales and Karl Rove. . . . All roads lead to Karl Rove when it comes to the political agenda,” Durbin said in an interview. “If Gonzales and Rove will not appear and testify under oath, they should be dismissed, period. . . . This goes to the integrity of our Department of Justice.”
Durbin added, “We know there was a political agenda for some of these U.S. attorneys, and if they didn’t play ball they were dropped from the team. . . . But there is a question we don’t know. How many U.S. attorneys were playing ball? How many were being contacted by the U.S. Justice Department about making political prosecutions before an election?”
The dispute showcases the new political muscle of the Democrats since they took control of Congress in January, allowing them to hold hearings and wield subpoena power. During their nearly uninterrupted six years in the minority, they could rail against the Bush administration but do little else; now the White House must contend with the Democrats in a new way.
Bush said Wednesday he had heard general complaints about U.S. attorneys from senators, but said he never “brought up a specific case” with the Justice Department, which recommended the eight firings to the White House. The White House, in turn, approved the list–maintaining that the president neither added nor deleted any names from the list of prosecutors to be replaced.
Plan for mass firings
The saga started after Bush’s re-election in 2004 with a recommendation to the Justice Department by Harriet Miers, then-counsel to the president, that all 93 of the nation’s federal prosecutors be replaced. The White House explained that Miers, whom Bush later offered and withdrew as a Supreme Court nominee, was looking for “fresh blood” in the prosecutors’ offices.
When a new president of a different party comes in, he has often replaced all or most of the U.S. attorneys. President Bill Clinton did it more abruptly than most, replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys at the start of his first term. His wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), now is defending that action as the prerogative of a new president seeking a clean slate of prosecutors.
Bush said he spoke with Gonzales by phone Wednesday morning. “I do have confidence in Atty. Gen. Al Gonzales,” Bush said, standing alongside Mexican President Felipe Calderon. “We talked about his need to go up to Capitol Hill and make it very clear to members in both political parties why the Justice Department made the decisions it made.”
Gonzales, who had admitted in a news conference Tuesday that “mistakes were made,” offered a more pointed admission Wednesday in an interview on CNN: “I think I did make some mistakes, and we’re going to take steps to ensure that that doesn’t happen again.” Asked about calls for his resignation, he said: “That is a decision for the president of the United States to make. I’m focused on doing my job.”
Kyle Sampson, who was chief of staff to Gonzales and rejected Miers’ recommendation to replace all the prosecutors, resigned Monday after Gonzales blamed him for the withholding of information about the firings from Congress. But leading Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, are calling for Gonzales’ resignation.
“Simply apologizing and firing a fall guy is not enough,” Schumer, the Senate’s third-ranking Democratic leader, said in a statement Wednesday. “We need a full accounting from the White House as to what went on here, the resignation of the attorney general, and a clarification from the president of his role.”
mdsilva@tribune.com
– - –
Q&A: Why the uproar on U.S. attorney firings
Q–Did the Bush administration overstep its authority in firing eight U.S. attorneys?
A–No. Under the law, the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired at any time without explanation.
Q–Then why the uproar?
A–Democrats say the firings were politically motivated. The White House says that the firings mostly were based on poor job performance.
Q–But if U.S. attorneys can be fired for any reason–or no reason–why does it matter?
A–It is accepted that a president is justified in firing a U.S. attorney who performs poorly or does not reflect the administration’s policies, such as strict enforcement of certain laws. But if the reason is partisan politics–either to hasten or quash an investigation to hurt an opponent or help an ally–that is considered improper.
Q–Was partisan politics involved in any of these cases?
A–The administration insists it was not, but critics think otherwise. One of those fired, David Iglesias of New Mexico, said two New Mexico Republicans, Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, called him to ask whether a political corruption investigation involving a prominent Democrat would be finished by Election Day 2006. He told them it would not. The Justice Department confirmed that Domenici called the agency to complain about Iglesias, and Iglesias was later dismissed.
Q–Are there indications that Iglesias had a poor job performance?
A–Iglesias was given a strong job evaluation in 2005. But Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said Justice Department officials “felt that he was not managing the office as well as it should be” and “didn’t possess leadership skills.”
Q–Is political influence the only issue here?
A–No. The controversy has heated up considerably since it was learned that Justice Department officials who testified before Congress under oath last week misstated how active the White House had been in the firings.
Q–How active?
A–It was revealed Tuesday that President Bush told Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales that he had received complaints that some prosecutors were not aggressive enough in vote fraud cases. It was also disclosed that White House counsel Harriet Miers had planned a U.S. attorney purge two years earlier. And the emerging role of White House political adviser Karl Rove has attracted particular notice.
Q–Did the Justice officials give intentionally misleading testimony to Congress about the White House role?
A–Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, resigned Monday after acknowledging he did not tell other officials about the full extent of White House contacts before they testified. Bush said Wednesday that “mistakes were made” in communication, but he insisted the firings were not political.
— Tribune news services
– - –
IN THE WEB EDITION: Find Washington updates in the Tribune’s national political blog, The Swamp, at chicagotribune .com/theswamp
—–
Copyright (c) 2007, Chicago Tribune
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.