[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15199-15200]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issues 
surrounding the removal of eight U.S. attorneys last year. Attorney 
General Gonzales has claimed that he had no involvement in the firing 
of the U.S. attorneys. In fact, this is his statement. He said:

       I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in 
     any discussions about what was going on. That's basically 
     what I knew as the Attorney General.

  That is really a stunning claim. His own Chief of Staff, Kyle 
Sampson, admitted the Attorney General misled the country. He is not 
alone. Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, 
said:

       I don't think the Attorney General's statement that he was 
     not involved in any discussions . . . was accurate. I 
     remember discussing with him this process of asking certain 
     U.S. attorneys to resign.

  The Washington Post reported, on Michael Battle, the former Director 
of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and I quote from that 
story:

       The former Justice Department official who carried out the 
     firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year told Congress . . . 
     that a memo on the firings was distributed at a November 27 
     meeting attended by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

  NBC News reported on William Mercer, the Acting Associate Attorney 
General:

       Justice Department official William W. Mercer told 
     congressional investigators on April 11 that he attended a 
     meeting with the Attorney General . . . to discuss ``fired 
     U.S. Attorney Carol Lamm's situation.''


[[Page 15200]]


  It is simply not credible that the Attorney General of the United 
States had no role in the removal of eight U.S. attorneys. After all, 
he is the head of the Justice Department. To his credit, the Attorney 
General did eventually admit that he had misspoken in describing his 
lack of involvement. Given the growing public record, I don't think he 
had much choice.
  However, to the great disappointment of people on both sides of the 
aisle, the Attorney General failed miserably in his attempt to set the 
record straight. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, the Attorney General used the words, ``I don't recall,'' or 
a variant on those words, 64 times. ``I don't recall,'' ``I don't have 
any recollection,'' ``I have no memory''--64 times. Some counts have 
that number at over 70. Some even approach 90.
  Time after time, the Attorney General was unable to respond to even 
basic questions. He couldn't explain or couldn't remember why the U.S. 
attorneys were fired or how he was involved. Again, his performance was 
truly stunning. His inability or refusal to answer basic questions 
raises serious issues. Is he incompetent or is he simply playing the 
loyal soldier? Why were these U.S. attorneys removed?
  Unfortunately, the answer that immediately suggests itself is that 
these firings were politically motivated. Let's look at some of the 
fired U.S. attorneys and the possible political reasons for their 
dismissal. Here we have them.
  David Iglesias, New Mexico--there was a probe of Democrats not 
completed quickly enough. We had prominent Republicans complaining that 
he had not reached conclusion on a probe of Democrats quickly enough.
  Carol Lamm, in California--she secured the conviction of a Republican 
Congressman, also had indicted the No. 3 official at the CIA, and was 
investigating a Republican Congressman.
  Daniel Ogden, Nevada--investigated a Republican Governor and former 
Republican Congressman.
  Bud Cummins in Arkansas--was replaced by a Karl Rove operative. He 
investigated a Republican Governor of Missouri.
  John McCay, in Washington State--to the dismay of local GOP 
partisans, did not investigate the gubernatorial election won by a 
Democrat.
  Paul Charlton, Arizona--he investigated Republican Congressman Jim 
Colby and Rick Renzi.
  You start to connect the dots here. They said the reason these people 
were removed was because of poor performance. At least that is the 
assertion of the Attorney General. But if you look at the written 
reviews of these same U.S. attorneys, ones who had been removed and 
ones for whom you can find a clear partisan reason for their removal--
look at the written reviews of their performance, which is the reason 
given by the Attorney General for their removal.
  David Iglesias, New Mexico, written review:

       Respected by the judiciary, agencies and staff . . . 
     complied with department priorities.

  Carol Lamm, California:

       Effective manager and respected leader.

  Daniel Ogden, Nevada:

       Overall evaluation was very positive.

  Bud Cummins of Arkansas:

       Very competent and highly regarded.

  John McCay, Washington State:

       Effective, well-regarded and capable leader.

  Paul Charlton, Arizona:

       Well respected . . . established goals that were 
     appropriate to meet the priorities of the department.

  What do we have here? The Attorney General says he wasn't involved. 
Others of his own staff say he was involved. Then he says it was 
performance reasons for which these people were removed, but if you 
look at the written reviews of the people who were removed, their 
performance reviews were excellent.
  But what you do have is a clear political motivation in case after 
case involving these U.S. attorneys. When you go back to the reason the 
Attorney General is giving now, that it is performance based, here is 
what the former supervisor of these prosecutors said:

       Comey added that:
       The reasons given for their firings have not been 
     consistent with my experience. . . .

  And that:

       I had very positive encounters with these folks.
       Comey was effusive in his praise of several of the fired 
     prosecutors.

  Comey was the Deputy Attorney General, and he described Paul Charlton 
of Arizona as `` one of the best.'' He said he had a very positive view 
of David Iglesias of New Mexico, and called Daniel Ogden of Las Vegas 
``straight as a Nevada highway and a fired-up guy.''
  Of John McCay of Seattle, Comey said:

       I was inspired by him.

  Now, it doesn't take long to figure out what has happened. The 
Attorney General comes and testifies he can't recall, he doesn't 
remember, that he wasn't really a part of it. He is contradicted by his 
own staff. Then he says it is performance based, but the performance 
reviews are without exception positive for these people who have been 
fired. Their supervisor, who was Deputy Attorney General, has rave 
reviews for virtually all of them.
  Let's connect the dots. These are politically motivated firings. I 
don't know what other conclusion one can come to, and that is a very 
serious matter. I have been in the Senate for more than 20 years. I 
have never come to the floor and raised questions about the political 
motivation of an Attorney General--never. I do so now, and I do it 
because I believe this is a serious matter.
  When the administration of justice becomes politically tainted in 
this country, that is an enormously serious matter. There is no longer, 
in my mind, any question but that this Attorney General has tainted his 
office. That is only further demonstrated by his late night visit to 
the hospital bed of the Attorney General of the United States, at that 
time John Ashcroft, to get him to sign documents that he refused to 
sign about the legality of certain actions of this administration.
  We have seen enough. This Attorney General needs to leave his office. 
He has tainted his office. He does not deserve the high responsibility 
and enormous honor serving as Attorney General of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________