[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.