    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 12 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
    [Pages 359-362]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    Remarks on the Department of Justice and an Exchange With Reporters

    March 20, 2007

        Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the
    resignations of U.S. attorneys. As you know, I have broad discretion to
    replace political appointees throughout the Government, including U.S.
    attorneys. And in this case, I appointed these U.S. attorneys, and they
    served 4-year terms.
        The Justice Department, with the approval of the White House,
    believed new leadership in these positions would better serve our
    country. The announcement of this decision and the subsequent
    explanation of these changes has been confusing and, in some cases,
    incomplete. Neither the Attorney General nor I approve of how these
    explanations were handled. We're determined to correct the problem.
        Today I'm also announcing the following steps my administration is
    taking to correct the record and demonstrate our willingness to work
    with the Congress. First, the Attorney General and his key staff will
    testify before the relevant congressional committees

    [[Page 360]]

    to explain how the decision was made and for what reasons.
        Second, we're giving Congress access to an unprecedented variety of
    information about the process used to make the decision about replacing
    8 of the 93 U.S. attorneys. In the last 24 hours, the Justice Department
    has provided the Congress more than 3,000 pages of internal Justice
    Department documents, including those reflecting direct communications
    with White House staff. This in itself is an extraordinary level of
    disclosure of an internal agency in White House communications.
        Third, I recognize there is significant interest in the role the
    White House played in the resignations of these U.S. attorneys. Access
    to White House staff is always a sensitive issue. 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.
        Yet in this case, I recognize the importance of Members of Congress
    having--the importance of Congress have placed on understanding how and
    why this decision was made. So I'll allow relevant committee members, on
    a bipartisan basis, to interview key members of my staff to ascertain
    relevant facts. In addition to this offer, we will also release all
    White House documents and e-mails involving direct communications with
    the Justice Department or any other outside person, including Members of
    Congress and their staff, related to this issue. These extraordinary
    steps offered today to the majority in Congress demonstrate a reasonable
    solution to the issue. However, we will not go along with a partisan
    fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.
        The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear
    more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts.
    It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of
    issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make
    key White House officials and documents available. I have proposed a
    reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose
    confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House
    officials.
        As we cut through all the partisan rhetoric, it's important to
    maintain perspective on a couple of important points. First, it was
    natural and appropriate for members of the White House staff to consider
    and to discuss with the Justice Department whether to replace all 93
    U.S. attorneys at the beginning of my second term. The start of a second
    term is a natural time to discuss the status of political appointees
    within the White House and with relevant agencies, including the Justice
    Department. In this case, the idea was rejected, and it was not pursued.
        Second, it is common for me, members of my staff, and the Justice
    Department to receive complaints from Members of Congress in both
    parties and from other citizens. And we did hear complaints and concerns
    about U.S. attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous
    prosecution of election fraud cases, while others had concerns about
    immigration cases not being prosecuted. These concerns are often shared
    between the White House and the Justice Department, and that is
    completely appropriate.
        I also want to say something to the U.S. attorneys who've resigned.
    I appreciate your service to the country. And while I strongly support
    the Attorney General's decision and am confident he acted appropriately,
    I regret these resignations turned into such a public spectacle.
        It's now my hope that the United States Congress will act
    appropriately. My administration has made a very reasonable proposal.
    It's not too late for Democrats to drop the partisanship and work
    together. Democrats now have to choose whether they will waste time and
    provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in
    working to do the people's business. There are too many important
    issues, from funding our troops to comprehensive immigration reform to
    balancing the budget, for us to accomplish on behalf of the American
    people.
        Thank you for your time. Now I'll answer a couple of questions.

    [[Page 361]]

        Deb [Deb Riechmann, Associated Press].

    Resignation of Eight U.S. Attorneys/Disclosure of Information to
    Congress

        Q. Mr. President, are you still completely convinced that the
    administration did not exert any political pressure in the firings of
    these attorneys?
        The President. Deb, there is no indication that anybody did anything
    improper. And I'm sure Congress has that question. That's why I've put
    forth a reasonable proposal, for people to be comfortable with the
    decisions and how they were made. Al Gonzales and his team will be
    testifying. We have made available people on my staff to be interviewed.
    And we've made an unprecedented number of documents available.
        Q. Sir, are you convinced, personally?
        The President. There's no indication whatsoever, after reviews by
    the White House staff, that anybody did anything improper.
        Michael [Michael Abramowitz, Washington Post].
        Q. If today's offer from Mr. Fielding your best and final offer on
    this, are you going to go to the mat in protecting the principle that
    you talked about? And why not--since you say nothing wrong was done by
    your staff, why not just clear the air and let Karl Rove and other
    senior aides testify in public, under oath? There's been a precedent for
    previous administrations doing that.
        The President. Well, some have; some haven't. My choice is to make
    sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions.
        Michael, I'm worried about precedents that would make it difficult
    for somebody to walk into the Oval Office and say, ``Mr. President,
    here's what's on my mind.'' And if you haul somebody up in front of
    Congress and put them in oath and all the klieg lights and all the
    questioning, it, to me, it makes it very difficult for a President to
    get good advice. On the other hand, I understand there is a need for
    information sharing on this. And I put forth what I thought was a
    rational proposal, and the proposal I put forward is the proposal.
        Q. And then you'll go to the mat; you'll take this to court--
        The President. Absolutely. I hope the Democrats choose not to do
    that. If they truly are interested in information--in other words, if
    they want to find out what went on between the White House and the
    Justice Department, they need to read all the e-mails we released. If
    they're truly interested in finding out what took place, I have proposed
    a way for them to find out what took place. My concern is, they would
    rather be involved with partisanship; they view this as an opportunity
    to score political points.
        And anyway, the proposal we put forward is a good one. I mean, there
    really is a way for people to get information. We'll just find out
    what's on their mind.
        Kelly O [Kelly O'Donnell, NBC News].

    Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales/Department of Justice

        Q. Sir, in at least a few instances, the attorneys that were
    dismissed were actively investigating Republicans--in San Diego, in
    Arizona, in Nevada. By removing them, wouldn't that have possibly
    impeded or stopped those investigations? And, sir, if I may also ask
    about the Attorney General. He does not have support among many
    Republicans and Democrats. Can he still be effective?
        The President. Yes, he's got support with me. I support the Attorney
    General. I told you in Mexico, I've got confidence in him, and I still
    do. He's going to go up to Capitol Hill, and he's going to explain the
    very things--questions you asked. I've heard all these allegations and
    rumors. And people just need to hear the truth, and they're going to go
    up and explain the truth.
        Q. In San Diego, Nevada, Arizona, Republicans were the targets of
    investigations, and those U.S. attorneys were removed. Does that not
    give the appearance----
        The President. Well, I don't--it may give the appearance of
    something, but I think what you need to do is listen to the facts, and
    let them explain to you--it's precisely why they're going up to testify,
    so that the American people can hear the truth about why the decision
    was made.
        Listen, first of all, these U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of
    the President. I named them all. And the Justice Department

    [[Page 362]]

    made recommendations, which the White House accepted, that 8 of the 93
    would no longer serve. And they will go up and make the explanations as
    to why--I'm sorry this, frankly, has bubbled to the surface the way it
    has, for the U.S. attorneys involved. I really am. These are--I put them
    in there in the first place; they're decent people. They serve at our
    pleasure. And yet now they're being held up in this--into the scrutiny
    of all this, and it's just--what I said in my comments, I meant about
    them. I appreciated their service, and I'm sorry that the situation has
    gotten to where it's got. But that's Washington, DC, for you. You know,
    there's a lot of politics in this town.
        And I repeat, we would like people to hear the truth. And, Kelly,
    your question is one I'm confident will be asked of people up there. And
    the Justice Department will answer that question in an open forum for
    everybody to see.
        If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right
    information, they ought to accept what I proposed. And the idea of
    dragging White House members up there to score political points or to
    put the klieg lights out there--which will harm the President's ability
    to get good information, Michael--is--I really do believe will show the
    true nature of this debate.
        And if information is the desire, here's a great way forward. If
    scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this
    reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to
    see.
        Listen, thank you all for your interest.

    Note: The President spoke at 5:45 p.m. in the Diplomatic Reception Room
    at the White House. A reporter referred to Counsel to the President Fred
    F. Fielding.