Leahy Presses White House To Turn Over
Documents, Information Being Withheld
…Seeks Docs, Relevant Info That White House Relying On To Claim No
Wrongdoing
In Plan To Fire And Replace Prosecutors
Despite Troubling Evidence Gathered By Congressional Committees
WASHINGTON (Friday, April 6) – Senator Patrick
Leahy (D-Vt.), sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding seeking
documents and relevant information relating to the firing and replacement of
several federal prosecutors, in particular any information that has led the
Administration to discount the troubling evidence uncovered already by the
investigating congressional Committees.
Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and other House and Senate members, have been requesting this
information for several weeks as part of congressional investigations into
the dismissals of U.S. Attorneys. The testimony of several of the fired
prosecutors that they were dismissed for improper political reasons has been
supported by documents released by the Department of Justice and the
testimony of current and former Department officials. White House
officials have publicly claimed nothing improper occurred, yet have refused
to provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with relevant documents and
information it has requested as part of its investigation.
“Despite the lack of cooperation, the
President and White House surrogates assert publicly that there was no
wrongdoing. Those assertions prompt me to ask for their basis,” Leahy
wrote. “On March 20, the President apparently based his assertion that no
one did anything improper on ‘reviews by the White House staff.’ Earlier
this week the President asserted at another press conference that ‘there has
been no credible evidence of any wrongdoing.’
The investigating Committees of the Congress
would benefit from the reviews and investigations the Administration has
conducted that have led the President to conclude that there has been no
wrongdoing.”
This is the third letter that Leahy has sent
to the White House in the past few weeks seeking cooperation.
Below is the text of the
letter. A pdf
version is also available.
April 5, 2007
Fred Fielding, Esq.
Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Fielding:
I continue to await answers to two letters.
The first is the March 22, 2007 letter sent by 10 Members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee inviting the White House to agree to provide the
investigating Committees of the Congress, both House and Senate, with access
to witnesses, information and relevant documents. The second is the March
28, 2007 letter I sent with House Judiciary Chairman Conyers asking the
White House to reconsider its “take it or leave it” approach with respect to
documents. There are documents that the White House appeared willing to
provide, and we urged those documents be provided without delay so as to
narrow the dispute and further the investigation. To date, we have received
no documents from the White House and no testimony of any White House
personnel.
The President acknowledged at his press
conference on March 20th that Congress is examining these
questions and “the role the White House played in the resignations of these
U.S. attorneys.” He said that he recognized the importance of our
“understanding how and why this decision was made.” He indicated that the
White House would be making the relevant White House staff available and
providing at least some of the relevant documents, as well. Despite his
saying that we would be provided with information from the White House, that
has not happened.
Despite the lack of cooperation, the President
and White House surrogates assert publicly that there was no wrongdoing.
Those assertions prompt me to ask for their basis. On March 20, the
President apparently based his assertion that no one did anything improper
on “reviews by the White House staff.” Earlier this week the President
asserted at another press conference that “there has been no credible
evidence of any wrongdoing.”
The investigating Committees of the Congress
would benefit from the reviews and investigations the Administration has
conducted that have led the President to conclude that there has been no
wrongdoing. Please make prompt arrangements to provide us with “the reviews
by the White House staff” on which the President relied in his statements on
March 20 and all other Administration investigations and reviews into these
matters.
Who was involved in conducting “the reviews by
the White House staff,” what did they examine, who did they interview, and
what documents did they review in arriving at the conclusion that no one did
anything “improper”? What other investigations and reviews has the
Administration undertaken into this matter? Who was involved in conducting
those investigations and reviews, what did they examine, who did they
interview, and what documents did they review in coming to the conclusion
that there is no evidence of wrongdoing? What evidence of wrongdoing has
the Administration rejected as “not credible” in the course of its
investigations and reviews into these matters?
Please include any and all information
obtained or reviewed in the course of these reviews by White House staff and
all other investigations and reviews by the Administration that lead
the President to discount the evidence the investigating Committees have
gathered so far, including:
-
The March 6, 2007 testimony of four of
the fired U.S. Attorneys before the Senate Judiciary Committee and six
of the fired U.S. Attorneys before the House Judiciary Committee, that
they were fired for improper political reasons.
-
The March 28, 2007 testimony of D. Kyle
Sampson, former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, that the
Attorney General and White House officials including Karl Rove and
former White House Counsel Harriet Miers were deeply involved in the
decision to fire and replace certain U.S. Attorneys, who, according to
internal evaluations and performance reviews, had been doing their jobs
well.
-
The testimony of Mr. Sampson, corroborated
by documents released by the Department, demonstrating that, contrary to
the Attorney General’s statements, Attorney General Gonzales had talked
to Mr. Sampson about the plan to fire prosecutors many times dating back
at least two years, beginning after the 2004 election when he was still
the White House counsel.
-
Mr. Sampson’s testimony that Karl Rove
complained to the Attorney General about U.S. Attorneys not being
aggressive enough against “voter fraud” in three jurisdictions—including
in New Mexico where David Iglesias was U.S. Attorney—and that those
three names were added to the list of U.S. Attorneys targeted for
removal, with Mr. Iglesias remaining on the list and being fired.
-
Documents and the testimony of Mr. Sampson
demonstrating that Mr. Iglesias was held in high regard and even
mentioned for possible promotion to the highest levels of the Department
in 2004 and 2005, until late in 2006 when Administration officials
received calls from New Mexico Republicans upset that Mr. Iglesias would
not hurry an investigation in order to indict Democrats before the 2006
elections.
-
Mr. Sampson’s testimony that he had
suggested to the White House that Patrick Fitzgerald be fired and
replaced in the middle of the investigation and prosecution in
connection with the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity as an undercover
CIA agent, which led to the conviction of I. Lewis Libby, the former
Chief of Staff to the Vice President, for perjury, lying and obstruction
of justice.
-
Documents showing that discussions began
at the highest levels of the Justice Department about the “real problem
with Carol Lam,” former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
California, immediately following notice of the expansion of the public
corruption probe Ms. Lam was leading into the activities of Republican
Rep. Randy (“Duke”) Cunningham and other Republican officials.
-
Documents and testimony showing that John
McKay, former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, was
highly praised by Mr. Sampson and others in the Administration and
supported by them for a judgeship as late as the summer of 2006, but was
included in the list of people to fire later in 2006. Documents and Mr.
McKay’s testimony suggest that Republicans were upset with Mr. McKay for
his decision not to intervene in connection with the close 2004
gubernatorial election in Washington.
-
The recent testimony of FBI Director
Mueller to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was not aware of any
voter fraud cases that should have been brought but were not, nor had
any FBI agents or officials brought such complaints to his attention.
-
Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty’s
testimony that former Easter District of Arkansas U.S. Attorney H.E.
“Bud” Cummins, III was removed to make room for Tim Griffin, a former
aide to Karl Rove, and the documents that demonstrate this was done over
the objection of home state Senators and with the intent to circumvent
Senate confirmation.
I understand that there is a joint Inspector
General and Office of Professional Responsibility inquiry recently begun at
the Department of Justice. Given that it has just recently begun, the
President could not have been relying on it in connection with his March 20
statement and I doubt that he was relying on it this week. I am not
requesting that investigation be provided at this time.
I am deeply concerned regarding what appears
to be political influence in federal law enforcement. There remain several
obstacles to the ability of the investigating Committees to learn the truth
about what occurred with these firings and replacements, who was involved
and why. The selectivity and incompleteness of the highly-redacted set of
documents we have received so far from the Department of Justice present one
set of obstacles. The refusal of the White House to provide relevant
documents and access to White House staff who played a role in these firings
and replacements are others.
Providing information to the investigating
Committees regarding the investigations and reviews conducted by the
Administration would aid us in our goal of getting to the truth in this
matter.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
