DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum 8 U.S. Attorneys fired by Atty.Gen. Gonzales...petty politics???

Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment

Goodling will refuse to answer Senate questions on fired U.S. attorneys

WASHINGTON - Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.
I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me? Of What?

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

Goodling, who is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, took a leave of absence this month. She was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee along with several of Gonzales' other top aides.

There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February.

Dowd said that a senior Justice Department official had told a member of the Senate committee that he was misled by Goodling and others before testifying.

The potential for taking the blame for the department's bungled response "is very real," Dowd said. "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.
Looks like her attorney sees possible criminal charges coming out of this investigation doesn't it? Much like me,he compares it to the Libby "inconsistancies". If that's a term for lying that suits you better.

Gonzales' support eroding
The disclosure comes even as the White House stood by Alberto Gonzales on Monday, while support for the embattled attorney general erodes on Capitol Hill amid new questions about his honesty.

Three key Republican senators sharply questioned Gonzales' truthfulness over the firings last fall of eight federal prosecutors. Two more Democrats on Sunday joined the list of lawmakers calling for Gonzales' ouster.

At issue is Gonzales' March 13 denial that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Gonzales "might be accused of being imprecise in what he was saying," but maintained that the attorney general was not closely involved in the firings.

"I understand the concern. I understand that people might think that there are inconsistencies," Perino said. "But as I read it, I think that he has been consistent."
There it is! Inconsistancies! I think they like that word better than lying obvious;y.

The White House is placing the onus on Gonzales to explain his action to lawmakers, but he is not scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until April 17 - three weeks away.

"I grant you, I think that that seems like a long time," Perino said. "But I don't think I would read into that that the Justice Department isn't having ongoing discussions with members of the Judiciary Committee on both the House and the Senate side, and other members who have expressed interest."

Bush did not speak to Gonzales over the weekend.

Loss of credibility
Gonzales faces the toughest test of his two-year tenure at the Justice Department with the release of documents suggesting he was more involved with the firings than he indicated earlier.

Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees.

Speaking to reporters in Orlando, Fla., Sen. Bill Nelson said whether or not Gonzales was fully engaged, "he has lost all credibility with me." Nelson, D-Fla., joined the ranks Sunday of lawmakers in both parties calling for Gonzales to resign.

"Unless he has a good explanation for not only what he knew and when he knew it but also for the ineptitude of the department ... he is a goner," Nelson said of Gonzales. "I think there might be enough Republicans who are calling for his resignation, even before he takes the witness stand."

Stopping short of demanding Gonzales' resignation, Sen. Arlen Specter cited a Nov. 27 calendar entry placing the attorney general at a Justice Department meeting to discuss the dismissals. Those documents "appear to contradict" Gonzales' earlier statements that he never participated in such conversations, said Specter, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department.

"We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful. And if we find out he has not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on," said Specter, R-Pa.

Specter said he would wait until Gonzales' testimony before deciding whether he could continue to support the attorney general.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Gonzales has been "wounded" by the firings. "He has said some things that just don't add up," said Graham, who also is on the Senate Judiciary panel. And Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said the Justice Department has continually changed its story about the dismissals.

"You cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility," Hagel said.

At the same time, Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Bill Nelson of Florida said Gonzales should step down.

Contradictory documents
At a March 13 news conference, trying to stem the furor over the firings, Gonzales said, "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood."

But his Nov. 27 schedule, included in a batch of memos sent to Capitol Hill late Friday, showed he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge.

Since the schedule's release, Justice aides have said Gonzales meant he was not involved in selecting the prosecutors when he said he didn't participate in discussions about their firings. "He didn't say he wasn't involved," former Republican chairman Ed Gillespie said Sunday.

Also, Republican Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah reaffirmed their earlier support for Gonzales. Hatch called Gonzales "an honest man" but added: "But let's be honest about it, the Justice Department has bungled this attorney thing."

Three of the ousted U.S. attorneys Sunday said they have concluded their firings were politically motivated.

Former prosecutors John McKay in Seattle and David Iglesias in New Mexico both said they were rebuked in private conversations for not pursuing Democrats in their states more aggressively in election-year investigations. "It is troubling, connecting those political dots," Iglesias said.
Was the GOP trying to get these attorney's to file charges on Dems BEFORE the election when these attorney's did NOT have the evidence to file charges in these cases? That WOULD be criminal if found to be true wouldn't it?

Bud Cummins, who was replaced as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., by a Karl Rove protégé, acknowledged political appointees can be fired for no reason.

"But in this case it looks like that authority was delegated down through (former White House counsel) Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Judge Gonzales and all the way down to a bunch of 35-year-old kids who got in a room together and tried to decide who was most loyal to the president," Cummins said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801652/

What is funny is the unrelenting hate the left has for........not for Gonzo...not for Bush...not really for Cheney...but for Karl Rove. He is the object of attention here. Little was made of this affair until Rove's name appeared on several emails concerning the dismissals. Rove is the Main advisor to Bush on politcal affairs and God forbid the main advisor has any advice to give on a purely political affair. They can't believe that Rove the Texas version of Elmer Fudd kicked their butts in 2 Presidential Elections...hell I can't either.

Now before you claim that I am failing to answer the questions and trying to muddy the waters consider that the people under suspicion of lying to Congress have reason to believe that they did in fact lie to Congress. Does it matter to them that they were not under oath when they lied???? If they were sworn in and they recanted their earlier testimony you'd still want to charge them for the original lie so why not just charge them now and get it going!

Quote:

---

If they were sworn in and they recanted their earlier testimony you'd still want to charge them for the original lie so why not just charge them now and get it going!

---

Because they are more concerned with the media attention and dragging this out as long as possible.

Mr .Pit...I am not being evasive but I am telling you that you do not determine the truthfulness of a witness by asking the same person the same question as the one which led you to believe that they lied. That is not an effective use of time or energies. I understand that you believe that something unknown will emerge or some deep dark right wing conspiracy may unfold but it ain't gonna happen that way.

If Congress believes that the appointees lied to them then they must have other witnesses to the facts...if so then they should charge them with perjury and get it on.

The real situation is that no one cares if these 8 atty's were fired for political reasons ...it's simply a perjury trap to repay the Repubs. for the Clinton fiasco. In that case the Pres. was charged in a civil trial by a private citizen and he was sworn to truthfully answer the questions posed...he lied and lost his license to practice law.

So charge the characters who lied and see how it plays out...if guilty punish them or offer immunity to roll over on their superiors...what are you afraid of....?

If your target is to expose Rove and the upper level of advisors under oath go for it. I have no doubt that they can explain their dirty little secrets as well as their inquisitors can attempt to embarrass them.

Your previous posts centered around the theme of lower level people lying to Congress as to the political motivation of their superiors in regards to the 8 dismissed US Atty's. You can bring these people in again and ask them under oath what they know and when they knew it if you'd like but this will be fruitless unless the previous attempt to grill them was under oath also.

The point of this is not to determine whether these underlings knew that their bosses were firing people for political purposes and subsequently lied about it. The entire world knows that politics was the main player in the dismissals and this is not news...happens frequently. The point is to find some way to convict Rove and his buddy[s] of forcing the under staff to lie about it.

Gonzo is not the target...people hate him because he is loyal to Bush and isn't turning away...Karl Rove is the target here and getting Rove will hurt Bush. That is what is up here.

To repeat Mr. Pit. I do believe the firings were politcally motivated- almost exclusively political. I believe the Executive Branch, Rove and others, are responsible for the targeting of the 8. I believe the staffers lied about the situation to the Congresspeople who asked them initially on their own as a fact of fact...for their political reasons.
The President is fighting this on the principle that private conversations between the Executive and his staffers should not be subject to review.

So go ahead now and subpeona everyone and let's see who talks and who chooses to invoke the "middle finger" the refusal to testify on grounds of self incrimination.

I hope they all talk let's see whose staffers are better at word games!

Pit...I understand your passion for the "truth."..and that is doubled when the "truth" hurts Bush and his team. I don't understand the aggressive and personal approach to debating which you choose to employ.
The topic is what we are debating not the "you or I" aspect of the exchange.
Sometimes the topic here becomes only an afterthought rather than the central theme of discussion.

We are talking about differing sides of politics...not a noble life of service to the nation. There are no more civil servants or national treasures of eloquence left in the political arena today. Money has taken over all aspects of Washington and "of the people, for the people and by the people" no longer is even a remote dream.

I'm still waiting for basic answers to the basic questions above. It appears you refuse to answer or have no answer. Not sure which one.


IMO- Gonzales IS the target! He claimed to have no information about "why" these firings happenned. Yet the emails dictate he was in an hour meeting over the subject just 10 days prior to the firings.
You're reaching here and at the same time avoiding elementary questions about this. Once you answer the questions posed,we can move this debate forward. So if you would,please try to address the questions. I plan to get those answers instead of playing dodge ball.

Mr. Pit

While your aggressive style seems to suit your idealogy it doesn't fit the forum. I'll have to review with my counsel to determine whether I am at risk of lying to the Message Board if at some time I need to change my opinion.

I am back, my counsel, Janet Reno, has instructed me that I am not under oath so I should follow the Clinton mantel of discussions which is denny,deny deny then deny again...then admit to a much more benign intention then admit that it was not any big deal whatsoever and the guilt or innocence depends upon your definition of what "IS" is.

I assume your question is whether Gonzo lied about his role in the firings. If so I'll make this clear again...of course he lied! Everyone has lied including those who are asking the questions. Your real intention is to determine whether Gonzo,Bush or Rove put out the word that no one should admit to any political motive for the firings...thus you have set your perjury trap.

Does that answer the question? Your honor!

If they have nothng to hide and did no wrong,why do you or ANYONE,including them,have a problem with tesitfying? Could you please answer this question? If there's nothing to hide,what's the big deal?

IF any law enforcement or Judicial branch feel there is "just cause for suspicion",isn't that the point that you "investigate it"? Do you "investigate" what you percieve to be the possible commital of a crime,build your case and gather evidence BEFORE pressing charges?

Or are you suggestiong people file charges without first investigating the matter to establish wheather they feel there is just cause to file those charges?

Why is Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors plan on pleading the fifth ammendment? "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me"?

Why is you avoiding my questions make me "aggressive"? Many people in this nation are looking for honest answers. That doesn't make them aggressive. It makes those refusing to answer these questions "evasive".

Do you plan on actually addressing these questions,or just keep evading them?

Mr. Pit...please take a moment to review what I have to say and actually consider that these are the answers to the questions which you claim I evade.

1. Yes, I do feel it is necessary to investigate crimes when evidence exists that a crime has taken place. If you choose to launch hearings because some "think" that lies were told ...go ahead...fill your template.

2.Do I believe that lies have been told..hell yes. It happens each day and is known as misinformation in some circles. Executive decisions made concerning sensitive personnel matters needs a fair amount of cloudiness. I believe that at least of few of the US Atty's were dismissed for purely political reasons, thus if asked about them those WHO MADE the decision need to decide themselves whether to answer the questions posed. If they don't they must bear the burden of accusation.

3.Why is Monica Goodling pleading the 5th? You know the answer it is a 2 word answer...............................................................come on............
Scooter Libby. Libby entered the hearings not charged with a crime but left as a convicted felon exited a convicted felon. I am not absolving him of wrongdoing but am suggesting that if he said nothing he'd be in better shape today. As it is he needs to wait for his pardon.

4. The Fifth Amendment is a disliked tool of those looked upon as guilty. It is sometimes a saving grace for innocent as well as guilty other people. I'd use it without a second thought if it helped me.

I hope this answers your questions if not apparently I am dumber than a bag of hammers.

Well Rooter, I'd agree with you if this was a business deal, but it is AGAINST THE LAW TO LIE TO CONGRESS period. Under oath or not. IF they DID lie then they broke the law. The US congress is not a boardroom where you can say whatever you feel like. As Pit has pointed out this is very, very similar to what happened to Clinton. The difference is that actual laws MAY have been broken. Not might be broken in the future when they testify again, but in the past. So I have no problems with congress wanted to get to the bottom of this. Also this is not looking like a Dem vs Repub things as it is now going across the aisle. I think it is Congress finally standing up and saying no more. They (and our government in general) have been subjugated by the exec branch. That my friends is not the way the government was set up.

"...IF they DID lie then they broke the law. The US congress is not a boardroom where you can say whatever you feel like."

Then prosecute them for God's sake!

"...As Pit has pointed out this is very, very similar to what happened to Clinton. The difference is that actual laws MAY have been broken."

Well my friend....Clinton was disbarred after conceding to lying under oath. The reason he was forced to testify was not a partisan one...but rather he was the main defendent in a Civil Rights suit by Paula Jones. He lied and was disbarred.

Mr. Pit....I told you that I believe that they lied...you believe that they also lied. The difference is that you want to investigate everyone involved and see who if anyone is willing to flip on someone else or lie again and accuse another of lying whether they know that to be factual or not.

While I do agree that lying to Congress is a criminal act it is hard to blame someone for taking the 5th. Lying to a Congressional Committee which includes Teddy Kennedy just seems ironic more than illegal.

I have gone as far as I can I believe with this. You will get your investigations I'm quite certain...some will take the 5th and some will tell their version of the story. Gonzo will eventually resign as he has been a weak A.G. and now a political liability. Karl Rove will be demonized and accused of everything short of stealing the Lindbergh baby.....then it goes away....as I will regarding this topic.

Sampson on the firing line

Gonzales’ ex-chief of staff to testify this week

Walking into the FBI gym for a basketball game in 2003 or 2004 to play against John Ashcroft and his boys, you would have found it easy to dismiss the former attorney general's point guard, D. Kyle Sampson. He was, and, well, still is, short and balding and chubby, looking like a smaller Karl Rove. But then at tip-off you would have discovered that Sampson was not a throwaway player or fill-in but a guy with legitimate skills. In a blur he'd take over the game as the best one-guards do: firing no-look passes to open teammates (including Ashcroft, the team's forward), passing the ball behind his back, breaking through a crowd for a layup and taking terribly accurate jump shots that left you and any of the other people he played against--FBI agents, U.S. attorneys, other members of the Justice Department--deflated and quite frankly stunned.

"He's deceptively quick," said former Justice public affairs director Mark Corallo. "I say deceptively because he has this baby face. But he can do it all, though." Tomorrow Sampson, 37, appears voluntarily and under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales until his resignation March 12, Sampson was the man in charge of the axing of eight federal prosecutors who were perceived as not being with the program the administration wished to prosecute. His testimony could be pivotal as lawmakers probe the depth of involvement in the sacking by Gonzales and the White House.

The best guards are extensions of their coaches -- putting into form what had been plays drawn up on the sideline. While acknowledging that "mistakes were made," Gonzales has maintained that he left matters to Sampson when it came to the firings. "I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on," he said. "That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."

Documents suggest otherwise, as does one of Sampson's closest friends.

"Everyone was in the loop," said longtime friend Sheldon Bradshaw, chief counsel of the Food and Drug Administration. Sampson "wasn't some rogue operative," Bradshaw said. "He does everything by the book." Sampson did not respond to requests for an interview.

Sampson's internal e-mails reveal an ambitious Washington player who relishes the tough move. In one, a week after the firings, he crows about the efficiency in replacing the U.S. attorney in New Mexico: "[Sen. Pete] Domenici is going to send over names tomorrow (not even waiting for Iglesias's body to cool)," a reference to ousted prosecutor David Iglesias. And in a memo headed "Plan for Replacing Certain U.S. Attorneys," Sampson expected elbows would be thrown. Step 3, underscored: "Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval."

A devout Mormon born and bred in Utah and educated at Brigham Young University, where he met his wife, Noelle, Sampson coveted the U.S. attorney's job in Salt Lake City and twice approached the man who still had the job, Paul Warner -- now a federal magistrate -- to ask him when he'd be stepping down. The first occurred in a conference room in Utah, Warner said, and the second took place during a lunch in Washington on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Though they shared the same home state, Warner and Sampson followed different public service narratives. A former JAG attorney, Warner had spent 17 years in various capacities in the U.S. attorney's office, saying it "was where I wanted to be, not where I wanted to be from."

In speaking to the eager Sampson, Warner asked him to slow his motor.

Sharp lawyer
"I let him know he would be helped with practical experience as a prosecutor," Warner said. "I told him he should spend some time as an assistant U.S. attorney. If you're going to be chief surgeon, it's nice to do some surgery."

Friends of Sampson defend him as a sharp lawyer more than capable of handling the rigors of any post. Bradshaw came to know Sampson in 1996 in Orangeburg, S.C., when both clerked in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit under Judge Karen Williams.

Something struck Bradshaw about Sampson the first day of their clerkship, he said. Though unimpressive in physical stature, the University of Chicago law school graduate who served as articles editor for the school's law review had that something: the overall presence of a man suited for bigger things.

"Here was a guy that was really bright and not 'polished' in the pejorative sense, but he was articulate and sharp, and frankly, people loved his work," Bradshaw said.

It was in this legal boot camp, a place where clerks get hands-on experience in the drafting of decisions, that Bradshaw, then a bachelor, and the Sampsons became inseparable: going to Braves games in Atlanta on weekends, playing Trivial Pursuit and eating Noelle's unbelievably good desserts and, to her dismay, talking about law long into the night. After a brief stint in private practice at a Salt Lake City law firm, Sampson came to Washington in 1999 to work as counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee for a man he will face tomorrow, Orrin Hatch. Before long, Sampson joined the Bush transition team following the contested 2000 election. His former law school classmate Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the vice president, had suggested him for the job, according to a report in the Salt Lake Tribune.

It was during those frantic, compressed weeks of putting together an entire administration that Sampson grew close to Gonzales, who had been Bush's attorney general in Texas, and followed him to the White House counsel's office. In one interview, Sampson said he admired the president because Bush believed that "public virtue and religious values have an appropriate place in public government." The new associate counsel settled into suburban life. The Sampsons and their three children live in Arlington and worship at Crystal City Ward in Alexandria. He runs marathons and has completed several; last year in Richmond he finished in 4 hours 21 minutes.

Very quickly, Sampson drew the attention of others within the administration. By 2003, Ashcroft wooed Sampson to Justice, where he became an integral part of Ashcroft's team -- traveling with the attorney general as he crisscrossed the country talking to members of the Drug Enforcement Agency, U.S. marshals and, yes, U.S. attorneys. Described as the person who kept things loose while people fielded cellphone calls nonstop and scrolled continually through their BlackBerrys, after a long day, Sampson would often sit at the hotel bar sipping ice water while his colleagues drank beer.

‘High level of integrity’
"He was very skilled," said Ashcroft's chief of staff, David Ayres. "He got things done the right way. He's very disciplined and has a high level of integrity. Yes, he's a good lawyer, but in addition he can make an entity that has 120,000 people run, and that's another set of skills."

When Gonzales succeeded Ashcroft as attorney general, Sampson rose in Justice to become Gonzales's chief of staff. Then last year, his former boss, Hatch, supported someone else as the next U.S. attorney in Utah. Whether Sampson's disappointment affected his handling of the dismissal of the eight U.S. attorneys is unclear. What is perfectly visible, though, is the vigor he brought to the task as he tried to implement the doctrine that Democrats suggest has been directed by top-level White House officials. Above all, according to people who agreed to talk for this article, Sampson valued loyalty and seemed ready to judge that quality in others, to determine who were "loyal Bushies."

To establish the criteria for those loyal Bushies, Sampson established a rating system for the "performance" of the country's U.S. attorneys and recommended to then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers that a "limited number of U.S. attorneys could be targeted for removal and replacement, mitigating the shock to the system that would result from an across the board firing." And it was Sampson, when presented with a plea from one targeted prosecutor, who quipped in an e-mail, "In the 'you won't believe this category,' Paul Charlton would like a few minutes of the AG's time."

Perhaps more than anything, Sampson's subsequent resignation speaks loudly to the very concept of what it means to be loyal in Washington today. Though sometimes flip in his correspondence, Sampson also appears as a man who's immersed in the mechanics of his task, providing the best possible logistics to carry out a higher mission. "He showed an enormous amount of loyalty," said Corallo, the former Justice public affairs director, "and ended up being attacked unfairly and unjustly by the people for whom he was being loyal."

This loyalty seems to be a hard thing for Sampson to shake. Even following his resignation, Sampson's attorney, Brad Berenson, insisted in a public statement that "Kyle did not resign because he had misled anyone at the Justice Department or withheld information concerning the replacement of the U.S. attorneys. He resigned," Berenson said, "because, as chief of staff, he felt he had let the attorney general down in failing to appreciate the need for and organize a more effective political response to the unfounded accusations of impropriety in the replacement process."

It is one of the hardest falls in political Washington, when the rapid climber winds up at the hearing table. When Sampson willingly comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow, he will come alone, with his former teammates nowhere around.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17822537/

Ex-aide: Gonzales signed off on attorney firings

Democratic panel chair Leahy says Justice Dept. motivation was improper

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales falsely denied he was deeply involved in the firing of eight federal prosecutors, his former top aide said Thursday, adding that the final decision on who was to be dismissed was made by Gonzales and President Bush’s former counsel.

“I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate,” testified Kyle Sampson, who quit this month as Gonzales' top aide. “I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign.”

Sampson said Gonzales attended a crucial meeting on the firings Nov. 27, 10 days before they were carried out.

Under questioning by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Sampson said Gonzales also was wrong when he said other senior Justice Department aides gave Congress inaccurate information because they hadn't been fully briefed about the firings.

"I shared information with anyone who wanted it," Sampson said. Asked by Schumer if Gonzales' statement was false, Sampson replied, "I don't think it's accurate if the statement implies that I intended to mislead the Congress."

The hearing was briefly halted by Republicans using a rarely invoked Senate procedure, but reconvened shortly afterward.

'Highly improper' standard
In earlier testimony Sampson said the prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President Bush's priorities, defending a standard that Democrats called "highly improper."

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Sampson said.

"Some were asked to resign because they were not carrying out the president's and the attorney general's priorities," he said. "In some sense that may be described as political by some people."

He denied that any prosecutor was fired for pursuing corruption cases that might hurt the administration. "To my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here," Sampson told the committee.

Gonzales planned to meet with U.S. attorneys from the mid-Atlantic region at Justice Department headquarters Thursday. It's part of a nationwide series of meetings to discuss the issue.

The Judiciary Committee's senior Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, scolded Sampson for causing an uproar that has distracted the Justice Department and jeopardized Gonzales' job.

"It is generally acknowledged that the Department of Justice is in a state of disrepair, perhaps even dysfunction, because of what has happened," Specter said. The remaining U.S. attorneys are skittish, he said, "not knowing when the other shoe may drop."

Democrats rejected the concept of mixing politics with federal law enforcement. They accused the Bush administration of cronyism and trying to circumvent the Senate confirmation process by installing favored GOP allies in plum jobs as U.S. attorneys.

"We have a situation that's highly improper. It corrodes the public's trust in our system of Justice," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. "It's wrong."

Sampson acknowledged that at one point he had advocated using a new provision in the Patriot Act to get around Senate confirmation of new federal prosecutors, but said Gonzales rejected the suggestion.

"He thought it was a bad idea and he was right," Sampson said.

Federal prosecutors and 'the president's pleasure'
Sampson, who quit earlier this month amid the furor, disputed Democratic charges that the firings were a purge by intimidation and a warning to the remaining prosecutors to fall in line.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, offered Sampson some support, saying he had seen no evidence that the dismissals were "designed to impede or actually did impede a criminal investigation or prosecution."

Sampson testified that federal prosecutors serve at the president's pleasure and are judged in large part on whether they pursue or resist administration policy.

"I came here today because this episode has been personally devastating to me and my family," Sampson told the panel, saying he wanted to share what he knew with Congress and put the issue behind him.

Rove's involvement
The Justice Department admitted Wednesday that it gave senators inaccurate information about the firings and presidential political adviser Karl Rove's role in trying to secure a U.S. attorney's post in Arkansas for one of his former aides, Tim Griffin.

excerpts Sampson questioning

Excerpts from the Kyle Sampson hearing on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys:

"The decision makers in this case were the attorney general (Alberto Gonzales) and the counsel to the president (then Harriet Miers). I and others made staff recommendations but they were approved and signed off on by the principles." - Kyle Sampson

"The dismissed U.S. attorneys have testified under oath and said in public that they believe political influence was applied. ... If they are right - and that's why we're having these hearings, to determine if they are right, the mixing of partisan political goals into federal law enforcement - then we have a situation that is highly improper. And it corrodes the public's trust in our system of justice. It's wrong." - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

"(Attorney General Alberto Gonzales') situation is grave. Whether he was intimately involved in this debacle or just presided over a department that allowed it to happen and didn't know a thing, that's a pretty severe indictment." - Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"Right now it is generally acknowledged that the Department of Justice is in a state of disrepair, perhaps even dysfunction, because of what has happened." - Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

"We will give you a fair shake. I think the attorney general deserves a fair shake." - Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

"This process was not scientific, nor was it extensively documented. That is the nature of presidential personnel decisions. But neither was the process random or arbitrary." - Kyle Sampson

"Presidential appointees are judged not only on their professional skills but also their management abilities, their relationships with law enforcement and other governmental leaders, and their support for the priorities of the president and the attorney general." - Kyle Sampson

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States Attorney is, in my view, largely artificial." - Kyle Sampson


"By and large, the process operated by consensus: when any official whom I consulted felt that an individual name should be removed form the list, it generally was." - Kyle Sampson

"With the exception of Bud Cummins, none of the U.S. attorneys was asked to resign in favor of a particular individual who had already been identified to take the vacant spot. Nor, to my knowledge, was any U.S. attorney asked to resign for an improper reason. ... To my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here." - Kyle Sampson

Justice officials acknowledged that a Feb. 23 letter to four Democratic senators erred in asserting that the department was not aware of any role Rove played in the decision to appoint Griffin to replace U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said that certain statements in last month's letter to Democratic lawmakers appeared to be "contradicted by department documents included in our production."

That admission, only hours before Sampson's testimony, took some of the sting out of Democrats' key pieces of evidence that the administration had misled Congress.

Still, Sampson provided plenty of fodder. He acknowledged planning the firings as much as two years ago with the considered, collective judgment of a number of senior Justice Department officials.

The Feb. 23 letter, which was written by Sampson but signed by Hertling, emphatically stated that "the department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin." It also said that "the Department of Justice is not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the administration, for Mr. Griffin's appointment."

Those assertions are contradicted by e-mails from Sampson to a White House aide, saying that getting Griffin appointed "was important to Harriet, Karl, etc." Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers was among the first people to suggest Griffin as a replacement for Cummins.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17852146/

Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales on firings


By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush isn't rushing to the rescue of his old Texas friend, Alberto Gonzales, after the attorney general's one-time lieutenant undercut his old boss' account of the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

Rather than merely signing off on the firings, as Gonzales has repeatedly stated, his former chief of staff says the attorney general was in the middle of things from the beginning.

"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate," Kyle Sampson told a Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry Thursday into whether the dismissals were politically motivated.

"I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign," Sampson said.

Sampson also told the panel that the White House had a large role in the firings, with one-time presidential counsel Harriet Miers joining Gonzales in approving them. And under questioning from Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Sampson said that looking back, he should not have advocated the firing of one prosecutor in particular, New Mexico's David Iglesias.

The administration has maintained previously that the firings were appropriate because the prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president.

Asked about Gonzales during a closed-door meeting with House Republicans on Thursday, Bush did not defend his longtime friend, according to one official who attended the session and demanded anonymity because it was private.

Instead, Bush tepidly repeated his public statement: The attorney general would have to go up to Capitol Hill and fix his problem, according to this official.

Publicly, the White House backed away from defending Gonzales even before Sampson had finished testifying.

"I'm going to have to let the attorney general speak for himself," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Even so, Bush "is confident that the attorney general can overcome these challenges, and he continues to have the president's support," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

One of the eight federal prosecutors ousted last year, Bud Cummins told the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service Thursday that the Justice Department suffered from an "over-enamorization" with the White House.

Cummins, who was U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., acknowledged that he served at the political pleasure of the president, but said Gonzales was remiss for not placing a "firewall" between politics and the work of the Justice Department.

As political theater, Sampson's appearance on Capitol Hill ranked with some of the most eye-catching hearings of recent years; the witness was faced off against a host of cameras and senators inclined toward lawyer-like interrogations in a cavernous Senate hearing room packed with spectators.

Sampson's account of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys over the past year lent weight to some of the most damaging Democratic criticism about the matter: that Gonzales was at the heart of the firings despite ever-changing Justice Department accounts of how they were planned; that some of the prosecutors were fired for political reasons; and that White House officials — including presidential counselor Karl Rove — played more than a limited role in the firings.

Afterward, one of the two Senate Republicans who are key to Gonzales' professional fate said he found Sampson credible and left the hearing with more questions about the attorney general and the firings than he had to begin with.

"He has many questions to answer," said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, the panel's ranking Republican. Sampson's conflicting account with Gonzales' pose "a real question as to whether he's acting in a competent way as attorney general," Specter said.

Gonzales has said, repeatedly, that he was not closely involved in the firings and largely depended on Sampson to orchestrate them.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that Gonzales has clarified his statements.

"His discussions with Mr. Sampson were focused on ensuring that appropriate people were aware of and involved in the process," Roehrkasse said. "He directed Mr. Sampson to lead the evaluation process, was kept aware of some conversations during the process, and that he approved the recommendations to seek the resignations of select U.S. attorneys."

Sampson resigned March 12. A day later, Gonzales said he "never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood" in the firings.

Gonzales is not scheduled to appear publicly on Capitol Hill until April 17 in front of the same Senate committee. More and more Democrats and Republicans have called for him to step down, but Roehrkasse said the attorney general has no plans to resign.

The grim-faced Sampson, a longtime and loyal aide to Gonzales, said other senior Justice Department officials helped to plan the firings, which the White House first suggested shortly after Bush won a second term in 2004.

Sampson said he was never aware of any case where prosecutors were told to step down because they refused to help Republicans in local election or corruption investigations. He also said he saw little difference between dismissing prosecutors for political reasons versus performance-related ones.

Sampson said he should have been more careful to prevent Paul McNulty, the deputy attorney general, and William Moschella, the principal associate deputy attorney general, from giving incomplete or misleading information to Congress in describing the dismissals.

He said that White House political staffers working for Rove were involved closely in the plans to replace prosecutors — as evidenced by thousands of department e-mails released to Congress.

It was Miers, he said, who initially floated the idea of firing all 93 federal prosecutors and ultimately joined Gonzales in approving those who were turned out.

___

AP Special Correspondent Dave Espo contributed to this report.

web page

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thought yesterdays testimony showed just how inept and inexperienced the administration appointees (Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson and others) were and are in the Justice Dept. These fired attorneys were career prosecutors who were among the best in the country at doing their jobs, but got whacked by political hacks who had never prosecuted a case.

Gonzo has some explaining to do but I doubt he comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee to do it. I look for Gonzo to resign after yesterday's testimony that showed him lying about his involvement.

Yet again, "LIES" bring down another Bush cabinet member. But the lies lead to the White House, IMO.

But I doubt the committee stops its investigation. US Attorney's like Johnny Sutton played the game and took it a step further than most US Attorney's by prosecuting US Border guards who were doing the job, trying to put a drug smuggler in jail. Sutton put the Border guards in jail while giving the drug smuggler immunity from prosecution (for marijuana smuggling) in exchange for his testimony against our US Border guards, who are now serving 10 yr sentences for doing their jobs.

Is Johnny Sutton's view of the law what you want for the rest of America?

Sutton needs to be put in jail along with his drug smuggler friend while the US Border Agents are set free. I want justice served on those that played political games with our justice system.

And there may be other cases where more US Attorneys (cronies) sold their souls to the Bush administration in exchange for keeping their jobs.

This investigation must look at every US Attorney to see if they were involved in political games the administration has been playing with America's justice system. How many more Johnny Suttons are there?

Docked for Duty?

The Justice Department called David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, an 'absentee landlord'—a key reason listed for his firing last December. Just one problem: Iglesias, a captain in the Navy Reserve, was off teaching classes as part of the war on terror. Now Iglesias is striking back, arguing he was improperly dismissed.

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 3:26 p.m. ET April 4, 2007

April 4, 2007 - When he wasn’t doing his day job as U.S. attorney in New Mexico, David Iglesias was a captain in the Navy Reserve, teaching foreign military officers about international terrorism.

But Iglesias’s military service in support of what the Pentagon likes to call the Global War on Terror (GWOT) apparently didn’t go down well with his superiors at the Justice Department. Recently released documents show that one reason aides to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cited in justifying the decision to fire Iglesias as U.S attorney late last year was that he was an “absentee landlord” who was spending too much time away from the office.

That explanation may create new legal problems for Gonzales and Justice. Iglesias confirmed to NEWSWEEK that he was recently questioned by lawyers for the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal watchdog agency, to determine if his dismissal was a violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), a federal law that prohibits job discrimination against members of the U.S. military.

At the encouragement of Office of Special Counsel director Scott Bloch and his deputies, Iglesias said he is this week filing a formal legal complaint with OSC against the Justice Department over his dismissal on this and other grounds. (While the Justice Department normally prosecutes USERRA violations, the OSC, an independent federal agency that protects the rights of whistle-blowers, takes the case when the potential violator is the federal government itself.) “I want to make sure they didn’t fire me because of my military duty,” Iglesias said. “When I was away from the office, it wasn’t like I was going on vacation in Europe.” (A Justice Department spokesman did not respond for a request for comment on whether Iglesias’s firing might have been a violation of the law.)

The OSC’s inquiry into the Iglesias case—first reported this week in NEWSWEEK— injects yet another irony to the controversy over the U.S. attorney firings.

The Bush administration has vigorously promoted enforcement of USERRA—in large part because of the dramatic increase in National Guard and military reserve members who have been called into active duty due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The law’s purpose—highlighted by Gonzales himself in a Justice Department press release last summer—is to make sure reservists and National Guard members don’t suffer in the workplace when they are called to serve their country.

Gonzales announced last August the creation of a special Web site to inform reservists and National Guard members of their rights under the law. At the time, he also touted the first-ever class-action lawsuit under USERRA that had been brought by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. The suit against American Airlines alleged the company had reduced employment benefits for two pilots—one of them, like Iglesias, a captain in the Navy Reserve—because the pilots had taken too much leave to perform their military service. “This nation depends on our reservists to faithfully carry out their duty,” said Wan J. Kim, assistant attorney general in the charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, when the lawsuit suit was filed. “No reservists—indeed, no members of our armed forces—should ever be punished or discriminated against for answering the call of duty.”

“This is a really interesting issue,” said Sam Wright, a veteran U.S. Navy lawyer and leading expert on USERRA, when asked about whether the law might apply in Iglesias’s case. (Wright recently retired from government service).

Wright noted that USERRA prohibits employers—including government agencies—from taking any “adverse employment action” against reservists or National Guard members because of their military service or even using such service as a “motivating factor” in such actions.

While it is far from clear that the law can be stretched so far as to apply to U.S. attorneys, the circumstances of Iglesias’ dismissal closely parallel the sorts of USERRA cases that are increasingly being brought by Bush administration lawyers, according to Wright and others familiar with the act.

Iglesias’s background as a Navy JAG (Judge Advocate General) Corps lawyer and his membership in the Navy Reserve was well known within the Justice Department. Indeed, it was a major part of his biography when, at the recommendation of his original patron, Sen. Pete Domenici, he was first nominated by President Bush to serve as U.S. attorney in 2001. (Assigned to represent a young Marine charged in a military hazing incident in Guantánamo Bay in 1986, Iglesias mounted a vigorous defense of his client, in part by raising questions about the conduct of the commanding officer. His performance was the inspiration for the Tom Cruise character in the movie, “A Few Good Men.”)

When he took off to perform his required 45 days of reserve duty each year, Iglesias said his secretary regularly notified the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys; officials there fully understood the reason he was going to be away, he said.

Those duties expanded in recent years, with the advent of the war on terrorism. In addition to prosecuting routine JAG Corps cases at naval bases in San Diego and Washington state, Iglesias told NEWSWEEK he was also enlisted to teach courses for allied military and intelligence officers at the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies at the U.S. Naval Station in Newport, R.I.—and at the Joint Special Operations University in Florida.

“I’ve taught foreign special forces on legal issues related to law enforcement and military operations,” Iglesias said, in an e-mail exchange with NEWSWEEK. The courses focus in part on the use of military versus law-enforcement rules of engagement. “I try to get them to think of what rules of force apply to terrorists,” he said.

But it wasn’t until months after he was abruptly terminated as U.S. attorney last December that Iglesias was surprised to discover that his time away from the office doing his military service may have been a factor—or at least was being cited as a factor—in his dismissal.

In February, when the controversy over the abrupt firings of eight U.S. attorneys erupted, top Justice Department officials prepared internal “talking points” for Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who was preparing to answer questions about the dismissals before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The talking points, part of thousands of pages of internal Justice Department documents released last month, show that officials listed “performance-related” reasons that McNulty could cite to explain why Iglesisas was fired. The second reason given was that Iglesias was “perceived to be an "absentee landlord" who relies on the first assistant U.S. attorney to run the office.” (In one version of the talking points, the words “absentee landlord” are underlined.)

Although McNulty never addressed the specific reasons for Iglesias’s firing in his Feb. 6 public testimony, a Justice Department official (who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters) confirmed that the deputy attorney general later mentioned the “absentee landlord” factor in a private briefing for congressional staffers.

To be sure, Justice officials cited other reasons, as well. They described Iglesias in the talking points as “under performing generally” and as a “lackluster manager.”

They also contended that he was not doing enough to enforce border security. But one of McNulty’s principal deputies, William Moschella, appeared to emphasize specifically the point about Iglesias being away from the office too much during his later testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. When asked by Democratic Rep. Linda Sanchez about the department’s reasons for firing Iglesias, Moscella replied that “Iglesias had delegated to his first assistant the overall running of the office. And, quite frankly, U.S. attorneys are hired to run the office.”

Of the U.S. attorneys fired, Iglesias’s case has arguably created the biggest problem for the Justice Department. As Gonzales’s former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, testified last week, Iglesias was not on the original list of U.S. attorneys to be fired last fall—and was only added in November after White House aide Karl Rove complained to Gonzales that Iglesias was not doing enough to prosecute voter-fraud cases—a top GOP campaign priority. Iglesias has testified that he got two phone calls last October from Rep. Heather Wilson and Senator Domenici, both New Mexico Republicans, pressing him to bring indictments in a local corruption case that implicated Democrats—contacts that Iglesias has alleged were improper. Those contacts prompted Iglesias to brand his firing “a political hit.”

Iglesias suspects that the Justice complaints about his absences were cooked up as an ex post facto rationale to justify a dismissal that was really made for political reasons. That’s why, in filing his complaint with OSC, he is also alleging that his firing may have been a violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal officials from using their offices to interfere with an election.

But it is his claim under USERRA that may raise the most interesting legal issues—especially in light of the Bush administration’s strong stand on enforcement of the law. The OSC's Bloch, a Bush appointee whose lawyers interviewed Iglesias by phone last week, has made “aggressive” USERRA enforcement a top priority. The agency has handled more than 300 complaints since 2004 and routinely seeks internal documents from other agencies—under threats of subpoena—to complete its investigations. In about a half dozen cases, the OSC has actually brought suit against federal agencies for USERRA violations before the Merit Systems Protection Board. (OSC lawyers say they have been able to resolve many other cases through negotiations with the agencies.) The OSC has also taken an expansive view of the reach of USERRA, contending that high-level political appointees are protected by the act, not just midlevel civil servants. “Our view is that USERRA is required to be construed liberally,” said one OSC lawyer, who asked not to be publicly identified talking about internal matters. “It’s very broad. There is no exclusion for political appointees.”

Wright, who co-wrote the USERRA law when he worked at the Labor Department in 1994, agreed that the reach of USERRA is unusually broad. But he said it’s still an “open question” about whether the law could be used to protect the jobs of U.S. attorneys—Senate-confirmed appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president.

If the question is whether U.S. attorneys, like all other citizens, have rights under USERRA, “the answer is clearly yes,” said Wright. “The harder question is whether there is any remedy.”

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17951419/site/newsweek/

Gonzales Prepares to Fight for His Job in Testimony

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has retreated from public view this week in an intensive effort to save his job, spending hours practicing testimony and phoning lawmakers for support in preparation for pivotal appearances in the Senate this month, according to administration officials.

After struggling for weeks to explain the extent of his involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, Gonzales and his aides are viewing the Senate testimony on April 12 and April 17 as seriously as if it were a confirmation proceeding for a Supreme Court or a Cabinet appointment, officials said.

The Justice Department has scheduled three days of mock testimony for Alberto S. Gonzales. (Stephan Savoia - AP)

Ed Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman, and Timothy E. Flanigan, who worked for Gonzales at the White House, have met with the attorney general to plot strategy. The department has scheduled three days of rigorous mock testimony sessions next week and Gonzales has placed phone calls to more than a dozen GOP lawmakers seeking support, officials said.

Gonzales is seeking to convince skeptical lawmakers that he can be trusted to command the Justice Department after the prosecutor firings, which he initially described as an "overblown personnel matter." Subsequent documents and testimony from his former chief of staff have shown that Gonzales was regularly briefed on the process, revelations that have led to calls for his resignation.

Justice officials and outside experts said the effort is further hampered by legal conflicts among Gonzales and his senior aides. Top Democrats have also accused department officials of misleading Congress in previous testimony, leading Justice lawyers to insist on limiting contact between key players to avoid allegations of obstructing a congressional investigation, officials said.

As a result, Gonzales and senior Justice lawyers have so far received little assistance from the White House and cannot consult with some of his closest aides, including Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, officials said.

"We are hampered because some senior officials are not able to discuss the facts as they know them in the same room, for fears of additional accusations of misleading Congress," said one Justice official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) sent a letter to Gonzales on Tuesday, asking for "appropriate firewalls" between potential witnesses involved in the firings.

"Our question to you is: Who do we talk to at the Department of Justice?" Leahy and Whitehouse wrote. "The office of the Attorney General appears to be hopelessly conflicted."

Several central players in the prosecutor saga are out of the Justice Department building altogether. They include Gonzales's former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned last month, and senior counselor Monica M. Goodling, who is on indefinite leave and who yesterday reiterated her refusal to answer questions from Congress. Michael J. Elston, McNulty's chief of staff, also began a scheduled personal leave this week after submitting to six hours of congressional interviews last Friday, officials said.

"In a sense, this is even more difficult than a confirmation hearing, because you are defending a record that has been assailed publicly and it involves other members of Justice who are also going to be called," said former senator Daniel R. Coats (R-Ind.), who led confirmation preparations for Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

"It just compounds the difficulty facing any witness in this situation," Coats said. "You don't have the ability to coordinate with other organizations or individuals that are going to be testifying, and there will be a lot of people looking for inconsistencies. It is no small challenge for the attorney general."

Gonzales is getting little support from Republicans in Congress, according to several GOP aides. Gonzales is scheduled to testify next Thursday before the Senate Appropriations Committee on budget matters, and then on April 17 at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing focused on the prosecutor firings.

Aides said the tenor has been set on the GOP side by Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking Republican on the judiciary panel. Specter has told Gonzales in private that he should consider beginning his testimony with an apology.

The Justice Department has scheduled three days of mock testimony for Alberto S. Gonzales. (Stephan Savoia - AP)

In previous confirmation hearings -- including those for Gonzales in January 2005 and Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. since then -- the White House, the Justice Department and Judiciary Committee Republicans closely coordinated their efforts.

In the case of Roberts, Specter's chief counsel, Michael O'Neill, attended one of the mock testimony sessions known as "murder boards," according to a former GOP committee staffer, who requested anonymity to speak freely about internal panel activities. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) was in attendance to watch a similar session with Alito.

Gillespie, now head of the Virginia GOP, and Flanigan, who pulled out of contention in 2005 as Gonzales's pick for deputy attorney general, did not return telephone calls seeking comment on their recent discussions with him.

After traveling around the country much of last week in an attempt to shore up fractured relations with U.S. attorneys, Gonzales has spent this week sequestered in his fifth-floor office suite, poring over thousands of pages of documents related to his upcoming testimony. He canceled tentative plans for a family vacation this week to focus on the hearings, officials said.

"The attorney general is very focused and is spending extensive time preparing this week to testify before Congress," spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.

Top Democrats have focused in recent days on escalating their demands for testimony from Goodling, Gonzales's senior counselor and White House liaison. She has told Congress that she will assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions about the firings.

Leahy and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have questioned whether Goodling is attempting to hide criminal activity by refusing to answer questions.

Goodling's attorneys, John M. Dowd and Jeffrey King, responded in a letter yesterday that such allegations "are unfortunately reminiscent of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who infamously labeled those who asserted their constitutional right to remain silent before his committee 'Fifth Amendment Communists.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402614.html