What follows is a detailed timeline regarding the firing of the US attorneys.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_adminis..._firings_controversy

a project of the Sunlight Foundation
and the Center for Media & Democracy

Congresspedia | U.S. Senate | House | Help | Editor's blog
Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy
From SourceWatch
In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without Senate approval. In early 2007, hearings were held on the matter in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committee on the firings. Several of the fired attorneys testified that they had been contacted by members of Congress or executive officials about pending cases shortly before their termination. Such contact by members of Congress is a violation of both House and Senate rules.

Contents
[hide]
1 Chain of events
1.1 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act
1.2 Bush administration fires eight U.S. attorneys
1.3 Judiciary Committee hearings held in House and Senate
1.4 Director of executive office for U.S. attorneys resigns
1.5 Gonzales backs down
1.6 D. Kyle Sampson resigns, new information comes to light
1.7 Administration's response
1.8 White House subpoenas, document dump, and 18-day gap
1.9 Senate revocation of interim provisions
2 Possible rules/legal violations by members of Congress
2.1 Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.)
2.2 Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.)
2.3 Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.)
3 Political corruption investigations led by Attorneys
3.1 Carol Lam investigates Rep. Duke Cunningham, Rep. Jerry Lewis, Brent Wilkes, and K. Dusty Foggo
3.2 Paul Charlton investigates Rep. Rick Renzi
3.3 Daniel Bogden investigates Rep. Jim Gibbons
3.4 Bud Cummins investigates Gov. Matt Blunt
4 Possible legal violations by Justice Department official
5 Statements from Members of Congress
5.1 Calling for AG Gonzales' removal
5.2 Statements of concern
6 Administration Officials Involved
7 Articles and resources
7.1 Sources
7.2 Resources
7.3 Articles and Commentary
7.4 Related SourceWatch Resources

[edit]Chain of events
[edit]2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act
On March 9, 2006, President Bush signed into law a reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, a bill originally intended to provide the federal government with additional tools to deter, prevent, and combat terrorism. Included in the bill was a provision allowing the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without a presidential nomination or Senate confirmation. Previously, the Attorney General could appoint interim U.S. Attorneys, but if they were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate within 120 days of being appointed, the federal district court would appoint a replacement. [1] Specifically, the new provision (SEC. 502 of the Act, Section 546 of title 28, United States Code) stated:

"A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title."

The provision was inserted into the bill by Michael O’Neill, chief counsel to then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) at the request of the Justice Department. Specter apparently learned of the provision after the bill had passed and did not support it. [2]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Bush administration fires eight U.S. attorneys
Just months after receiving new authority to replace U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation, the Bush administration fired eight U.S. attorneys. Most were fired on Thursday, December 7, 2006. [3] Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales acknowledged the firings during a January 2007 Senate hearing, but insisted all were for performance reasons, and were in no way inspired by political motives. He stated “What we're trying to do is ensure that for the people in each of these respective districts, we have the very best possible representative for the Department of Justice…I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.” [4] The following is a list of the U.S. attorneys who were fired (or asked to resign) by the administration, as well as the interim replacement named for them:

Fired Attorney District Interim Replacement[5] Initial "Performance-related" Excuse for Firing[6]

Bud Cummins District of Arkansas Timothy Griffin Give experience to another

Kevin Ryan District of San Francisco Scott Schools None given

Daniel Bogden District of Nevada Steven Myhre Give experience to another; "take it to another level"

Carol Lam District of San Diego Karen Hewitt Not enough gun, immigration prosecutions

David Iglesias District of New Mexico Larry Gomez Delegated authority to his assistant

Paul Charlton District of Arizona Daniel G. Knauss Did not approve of his "taping conversations"

John McKay District of Washington State Jeffrey C. Sullivan Did not approve of the manner "in which he went about advocating particular policies"

Margaret Chiara District of Michigan (Western) Russell C. Stoddard None given

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Judiciary Committee hearings held in House and Senate
On March 1, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to four of the fired prosecutors (California’s Southern District’s Carol Lam, New Mexico’s David Iglesias, Arkansas’ Eastern District’s H.E. “Bud” Cummins, and Washington’s Western District’s John McKay). On March 5, additional subpoenas were issued to Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona to testify before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. That week, the original four voluntarily chose to also testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. [7]

On March 6, the hearings were held, and focused on executive and legislative branch interference into corruption inquiries for which the attorneys were working at the time of their respective firings. [8]

On March 9, The Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on whether or not to subpoena Justice Department officials as part of an investigation into the firing of the attorneys.

On March 15, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved subpoenas for various Justice Department and White House officials and six of the fired U.S. Attorneys. The officials subpoenaed to testify include, Kyle Sampson, Michael Elston, William Mercer, Monica Goodling, and Michael Battle. The Attorneys subpoenaed are Bud Cummins, David Iglesias, Carol Lam, John McKay, Paul Charlton, and Daniel Bogden. The Committee decided to wait to vote on subpoenas for current and former top White House officials former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and Deputy White House Counsel William Kelly.[9]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Director of executive office for U.S. attorneys resigns
On March 5, 2007, Michael Battle, the executive director of the Executive Office for United States attorneys, resigned. Battle had personally made the calls firing several of the attorneys on December 7, 2006. [10]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Gonzales backs down
In the midst of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, speaking for the administration, agreed on March 8 to not oppose legislation limiting the attorney general's power to appoint interim prosecutors. Such legislation would effectively change the way U.S. Attorneys are replaced. [11]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]D. Kyle Sampson resigns, new information comes to light
The man in charge of dismissing the U.S. Attorneys, D. Kyle Sampson, resigned March 12, 2007, after he acknowledged that he withheld information from Congress. Among the information withheld was that the White House had been considering firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys as early as February 2005. [1]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Administration's response
On March 14, the White House responded to increasing criticism by offering an additional reason for the forced resignations, namely, "Lax Voter-Fraud Investigations". Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett, cited complaints about U.S. Attorneys in New Mexico, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.[2]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]White House subpoenas, document dump, and 18-day gap
Amidst a Democratic push to subpoena White House staff, including former presidential adviser Karl Rove who replaced one of the fired U.S. Attorneys, Sen. John Cornyn equated the efforts to "a political witch hunt" in an interview on March 18. Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, countered later that day by stating that the decision to subpoena was ultimately his and that he was "sick and tired of getting half-truths" from the White House on this issue. [12]

On March 19, 2007, the White House released 3,000 documents of correspondence to the House Judiciary Committee organized haphazardly. Staffers scanned and posted all of the documents online in an effort to distribute research to the public. [13]

Talking Points Memo began a distributive research project on March 20, 2007, to sort through the documents and discovered that there was a period, between November 15 and December 4, where correspondence was not released. The 18-day gap begins after an e-mail conversation between Harriet Miers and Kyle Sampson.[14]

From: Harriet_Miers@who.eop.gov [mailto: Harriet_Miers@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:39 AM
To: Sampson, Kyle; William_K._Kelley@who.eop.gov
Cc: McNulty, Paul J
Subject: RE: USA replacement plan
Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss's attention. If it does, he just left last night so would not be able to accomplish that for some time. We will see. Thanks.
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:08 PM
To: 'Harriet_Miers@who.eop.gov'; William_K._Kelley@who.eop.gov
Cc: McNulty, Paul J
Subject: RE: USA replacement plan
Who will determine whether whether this requires the President's attention?
The next e-mail in the thread of documents comes on December 4, 2006 when Kyle Sampson informs Paul McNulty, Michael Elston, Michael Battle, William Moschella, and Monica Goodling that "we are a go for Thursday". The firings occurred on Thursday, December 7, 2006. [15]

On March 20, 2007, the White House offered to grant members of Congress private interviews with administration officials, such as Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and two of their deputies, conducted with neither oaths nor transcripts. Democrats rejected the offer and President George W. Bush vowed later that day to oppose any efforts to subpoena White House staff members. Meanwhile, Democrats continued to move forward in the subpoena process.[16]

On March 21, 2007, the House Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee voted to authorize Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) to issue subpoenas for Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, William Kelley, Scott Jennings and Kyle Sampson, as well as documents that the Committee has not yet received. Conyers said in a press release, "The White House's offer provides nothing more than conversations. It does not allow this Committee to get the information we need without transcripts or oaths."[17] While Conyers has the authority to issue the subpoenas now, he will hold back on serving them for the time being.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Senate revocation of interim provisions
Senate record vote:
A bill to amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys.
March 20, 2007
Passed, 94-2, view details
Dem: 46-0 in favor, GOP: 46-2 in favor, Ind: 2 in favor

Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced the "Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007" on January 9, 2007 [18]. The Act, if passed, would repeal the provisions granted to the White House in 2006 allowing for the appointment of U.S. Attorneys without the approval of the Senate. The Act was planned for consideration on March 19, effectively opening a floor debate on the issue. [19]

Initially Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) indicated that he would block the bill if it came to the floor of the Senate.[20] Kyl eventually decided against blocking the bill when he was allowed to offer an amendment.[21] On March 20, 2007, the Feinstein's bill passed the Senate by a vote of 94-2.[22]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Possible rules/legal violations by members of Congress
At the hearings, several of the fired attorneys said that they had been contacted by members of Congress and/or their staffs regarding ongoing investigations. These actions appeared to violate both House and Senate ethics rules. [23]

[edit]Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.)
As of late 2006, David Iglesias was the U.S. attorney for New Mexico. Around this time, he received phone calls from both Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) regarding information about an ongoing political corruption investigation of a local Democrat, who he ultimately decided not to prosecute. Iglesias testified that he felt “leaned on” and “sickened” by the contacts. [24]

Wilson’s actions appeared to violate House rules. Chapter 7 of the House ethics manual prohibits members from contacting executive or agency officials regarding the merits of matters under their formal consideration. House rules (see House rules) also state that if a member wants to affect the outcome of a matter in litigation, the member can file a brief with the court, make a floor statement, or insert a statement into the congressional record. Directly contacting officials to influence an ongoing investigation is not permitted. [25]

In addition, House rules declare that a member may not even contact a prosecutor with the intent of simply requesting “background information” or a “status report” because the House believes that such requests “may in effect be an indirect or subtle effort to influence the substantive outcome of the proceedings.” [26]

Lastly, Wilson’s conduct may have violated the requirement that members conduct themselves in a manner that “reflects creditably on the House.” In the past, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was admonished for asking an executive branch employee to engage in an activity having an “impermissible political purpose.” [27]

On the basis of these potential violations, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called for an Ethics Committee investigation into Wilson. [28]

[edit]Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.)
Following Iglesias’ allegation that Domenici pressured him about the pace of the investigation of a New Mexico Democrat, Domenici initially denied speaking to him. He stated “I have no idea what he’s talking about.” Later, however, he admitted calling Iglesias, stating “I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what time frame we were looking at.” [29]

Domenici’s actions appear to have violated Senate rules. In a discussion of Senate Rule 43, the Senate Ethics Manual states that “[t]he general advice of the Ethics Committee concerning pending court actions is that Senate offices should refrain from intervening in such legal actions . . . until the matter has reached a resolution in the courts.” The manual also indicates that senators should not consult with an agency regarding any enforcement or investigative matter. [30]

In a request for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation, CREW alleges that Domenici violated Rule 43 by pressuring Iglesias to “act quickly on a pending corruption investigation.” In addition, because Domenici made the call shortly before the November 2006 congressional elections, he may have violated the clause restricting members from contacting agencies on the basis of political considerations. [31]

On March 7, 2007, Domenici hired Lee Blalack, formerly an attorney for former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), as his legal counsel. [32]

[edit]Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.)
During the March 6 testimony, fired Washington attorney John McKay said that Rep. Doc Hastings’ (R-Wash) senior staffer, Ed Cassidy, called him to inquire about whether or not any investigations were underway regarding voter fraud in the hotly-contested Washington gubernatorial race in 2004 (won by Democrat Christine Gregoire). [33]

During the call, McKay reminded Cassidy that calling to recommend a federal investigation would be improper. According to McKay, Cassidy "agreed it would be improper" and ended the call. McKay immediately told his staff about the call and agreed with them that "I had stopped Mr. Cassidy from doing anything improper." He continued, however, that he "was concerned and dismayed by the call." [34]

Also during his testimony, McKay said that when he made a bid to be a federal judge in 2006, he was asked by former White House counsel Harriet Miers and deputy counsel William Kelley to explain "criticism that (he) mishandled the 2004 governor's election." [35]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Political corruption investigations led by Attorneys
The firing of the seven U.S. Attorneys raised questions about whether they were fired to stop investigations into high ranking Republican Party officials. In four states the fired Attorney had pursued an investigation into the activities of Republican Members of Congress, administration officials, and high ranking state officials. The idea that Attorneys were removed to stymie investigations of political figures looms over the Attorney firing scandal. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has stated that, "If any U.S. attorney were removed because of a public corruption investigation or prosecution, this could well comprise obstruction of justice."[36]

[edit]Carol Lam investigates Rep. Duke Cunningham, Rep. Jerry Lewis, Brent Wilkes, and K. Dusty Foggo
Lam began investigating Randy "Duke" Cunningham on June 6, 2005 after the San Diego Union-Tribune reported on the congressman's overvalued house sale to a connected defense contractor, Mitchell Wade. The investigation led to a series of revelations about Cunningham's misconduct as a government official that included that existence of a bribe "menu" matching the worth of earmarks Cunningham would insert into appropriations bills to bribe money a contractor could give to Cunningham. Cunningham and Wade plead guilty to multiple felonies and Cunningham was sentenced to eight years and eight months in prison, the longest sentence handed down to a sitting Member of Congress. Wade is still cooperating with prosecutors.

The revelations in the case led Lam to open investigations into the defense contractor and Republican fundraiser Brent Wilkes, Wilkes' best friend and the number three at the CIA, K. "Dusty" Foggo, and then-Appropriation chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA). On May 10, 2006, Lam told the Justice Department she intended to serve search warrants on Foggo, who had just resigned his post at the CIA. The next day, May 11, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam's investigation into Cunningham had spread to Rep. Lewis.[37] That same day, Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, wrote in an e-mail to the White House about "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."[38]

The day before Lam left her position she brought multiple indictments on felony charges against Foggo and Wilkes. The investigation into Jerry Lewis is ongoing. The FBI was investigating potential criminal wrongdoing on the part of Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) at the time of Lam's departure.[39] Lam would have been in charge of leading the investigation at the Attorney's office had she not been fired.

On March 19, 2007, Think Progress reported on suspicious ties between the first contract that Mitchell Wade received and the purchase of a yacht for Duke Cunningham that may implicate White House officials in the congressman's corruption schemes. Wade's first contract was a one month $140,000 contract, July 15, 2002 to August 15, 2002, with the Office of the Vice President to provide office furniture and computers. Two weeks later on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a $140,000 yacht for Cunningham with a cashier's check.[40] In September Wade was rewarded with a blanket $250 million contract from the General Services Administration to provide "specific computer services" to the Pentagon.[41]

[edit]Paul Charlton investigates Rep. Rick Renzi
In late October of 2006, two liberal blogs revealed, later confirmed by the Associated Press and the Washington Post, that U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton had opened an investigation into a land deal made by Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) and a business partner James Sandlin.[42] Days after this investigation came to light the New York Times reported that the Attorney's office had also opened an investigation into whether Renzi introduced legislation that benefited a military contractor who donated heavily to his campaigns and employs his father.[43]

Renzi was a top target of Democrats in the 2006 election and won a close election 51%-43%.[44] Since Charlton's abrupt departure there has been little revelation as to the status of these investigations.

[edit]Daniel Bogden investigates Rep. Jim Gibbons
On February 15, 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported that Daniel Bogden was investigating the newly elected Governor of Nevada, former-Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV), for allegedly accepting unreported gifts and/or payments from a campaign contributor and earmark recipient, Warren Trepp. The investigation examined the relationship between the former congressman and Trepp between the years 1997-2007). The Journal did not report when the investigation was opened. Bogden was since removed from his position as U.S. Attorney.[45][46]

[edit]Bud Cummins investigates Gov. Matt Blunt
In January of 2006, Cummins opened an investigation into "allegations that Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt had rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts to run the state's driver's license offices." Cummins handled the case because the U.S. Attorney for Missouri recused themselves over conflict of interest concerns. Cummins states that he was told he would be fired in June as he was wrapping up the case. Cummins eventually brought no indictments against Gov. Blunt, the son of powerful Republican congressman Roy Blunt (R-MO). Cummins has since questioned whether he was fired for opening an investigation into a powerful Republican in a battleground state.[47]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Possible legal violations by Justice Department official
During the March 6 testimony, former Arkansas attorney Bud Cummins testified to Congress (both the House and Senate) that he received threats from a senior Justice Department official that “warned him on Feb. 20 that the fired prosecutors should remain quiet about their dismissals.” [48] Cummins described the threats in an email to the other US Attorneys involved [49]. According to several of the fired U.S. Attorneys, this action amounts to “obstruction of justice.” [50]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Statements from Members of Congress
[edit]Calling for AG Gonzales' removal
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "This department has been so political that I think for the sake of the nation, Attorney General Gonzales should step down."[51]

"This weekend I called for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to step down. Today's staff resignation does not take heat off the attorney general. In fact, it raises the temperature. Kyle Sampson will not become the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy."[52]

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "The buck should stop somewhere and the attorney general — who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president's personal attorney with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country — should resign."[53]

Sen. John Sununu (R-NH): "I think the president should replace him. I think the attorney general should be fired."[54]

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR): "For the Justice Department to be effective before the U.S. Senate, it would be helpful" if Gonzales resigned.[55]

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): "We can soft-pedal it a lot of ways, but Congress was lied to ... he should not be able to continue in his job."[56]

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA): "Even for Republicans this is a warning sign … saying there needs to be a change ... Maybe the president should have an attorney general who is less a personal friend and more professional in his approach."[57]

Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-OH): "Today, Representative Paul Gillmor of Ohio also called for Gonzales to be replaced. Gonzales ``has become a lightning rod and has distracted from the Justice Department's mission, Gillmor said in a statement."[58]

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): "I believe we need a new attorney general."[59]

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT): "Anyone found responsible for these egregious lapses in judgment — up to and including Alberto Gonzales — should be immediately dismissed."[60]

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO): "Gonzales' legacy at the (Justice Department) has been one of misplaced priorities, political miscalculation, and a failure to enforce the laws which he has sworn to uphold. I think that it is time for him to move on."[61]

[edit]Statements of concern
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): "One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later."[62]

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN): "Coleman, who faces a tough re-election campaign next year, said in an interview he had "deep concerns" about whether Gonzales should stay. "This situation has been handled abysmally," he said."[63]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Administration Officials Involved
Name Position

Alberto Gonzales Attorney General and former White House Counsel

Paul McNulty Deputy Attorney General

Karl Rove Deputy White House Chief of Staff

Harriet Miers White House Counsel

Kyle Sampson Chief of Staff to the Attorney General

Fred Fielding White House Counsel

William Kelley Deputy White House Counsel

Michael Elston Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General

William Moschella Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General

Michael Battle Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys

Monica Goodling Justice Department's liaison to the White House

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit]Articles and resources
[edit]Sources
↑ Paul Kiel, "Did Specter Give WH Power to Replace Prosecutors?" TPM Muckraker, January 17, 2007.
↑ Paul Kiel, "Specter: Measure Was News To Me, Too," TPM Muckraker, February 6, 2007.
↑ "Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys," Washington Post, March 9, 2007.
↑ Dan Eggen, "Prosecutor Firings Not Political, Gonzales Says," Washington Post, January 18, 2007.
↑ "Department of Justice List of U.S. Attorneys."
↑ Kiel, Paul. "Purged Prosecutors: Now, The House," TPM Muckraker, March 6, 2007.
↑ Paul Kiel, "BREAKING: House Committee to Subpoena Ousted Prosecutors," TPM Muckraker, March 1, 2007.
↑ Susan Crabtree, "Subpoenas may spell trouble for Domenici and Wilson," The Hill, March 5, 2007.
↑ " Senate Judiciary Committee Authorizes Chairman Leahy To Issue Subpoenas As Part Of Panel’s Ongoing Investigation Into Mass Firings Of Prosecutors," Senate Judiciary Committee Press Release, March 15, 2007.
↑ Josh Marshall, "No title," Talking Points Memo, March 5, 2007.
↑ "Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys," Washington Post, March 9, 2007.
↑ Jeremy Jacobs, "Leahy, Cornyn clash over possible White House subpoenas," The Hill, March 18, 2007.
↑ Elizabeth Williamson, "Just 3,000 Pages Until Bedtime," The Washington Post, March 21, 2007.
↑ "DOJ-Released Documents 2-1," March 19, 2007.
↑ Joshua Micah Marshall, "Shades of Rose Mary Woods? An 18 day gap?" Talking Points Memo, March 21, 2007.
↑ Elana Schor, "Dems reject Bush offer on Karl Rove," The Hill, March 21, 2007.
↑ Press Release. "Judiciary Subcommittee Authorizes Chairman Conyers to Issue Subpoenas in US Attorney Investigation," House Judiciary Committee Press Release, March 21, 2007.
↑ Thomas page on S.214
↑ Carl Hulse, "Congress: On Prosecutors and the War," The Caucus, March 19, 2007.
↑ Van Dongen, Rachel. "U.S. Attorneys Bill Still Faces GOP Opposition," Roll Call, March 12, 2007.
↑ Kiel, Paul. "U.S. Attorney Bill Coming up Tuesday," TPM Muckraker, March 15, 2007.
↑ Yost, Pete and Lara Jakes Jordan. "Senate OKs Limits on Gonzales' Authority," Associated Press, March 20, 2007.
↑ CREW: Request for House Ethics Committee investigation of Rep. Heather Wilson
↑ " Fired U.S. attorneys allege political pressure," CNN.com, March 7, 2007.
↑ CREW: Request for House Ethics Committee investigation of Rep. Heather Wilson
↑ CREW: Request for House Ethics Committee investigation of Rep. Heather Wilson
↑ CREW: Request for House Ethics Committee investigation of Rep. Heather Wilson
↑ CREW: Request for House Ethics Committee investigation of Rep. Heather Wilson
↑ CREW: Request for Senate Ethics Committee investigation of Sen. Pete Domenici
↑ CREW: Request for Senate Ethics Committee investigation of Sen. Pete Domenici
↑ CREW: Request for Senate Ethics Committee investigation of Sen. Pete Domenici
↑ Paul Kiel, "Domenici Lawyers Up," TPM Muckraker, March 7, 2007.
↑ Laurie Kellman, "Fired Attorneys Allude to Justice Threat," The Guardian, March 7, 2007.
↑ "McKay: Hastings' office called about probing Gregoire's election," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 6, 2007.
↑ Paul Kiel, "Washington Republicans Chased Ousted Prosecutor," TPM Muckraker, March 7, 2007.
↑ Kellman, Laurie. "Gonzales' Hold on Job Grows Uncertain," Associated Press, March 19, 2007.
↑ Kiel, Paul. "LAT: Cunningham Probe Spreads to Rep. Lewis," TPM Muckraker, May 11, 2006.
↑ Talev, Margaret and Marisa Taylor, "Were CIA subpoenas linked to San Diego attorney's firing?," McClatchy Newspapers, March 18, 2007.
↑ Kiel, Paul. "FBI Investigating CA GOPer," TPm Muckraker, January 30, 2007.
↑ Shakir, Faiz. "Was Carol Lam Targeting The White House Prior To Her Firing?," Think Progress, March 19, 2007.
↑ Pae, Peter, Tony Perry, and Richard Simon. "Cunningham's Fall From Grace, Power," San Diego Union-Tribune, December 5, 2005.
↑ Weisman Jonathan and Dan Eggen. "Lawmaker's Influence in Land Deals Probed," Washington Post, October 25, 2006.
↑ Johnston, David. "THE 2006 CAMPAIGN; Congressman From Arizona Is the Focus Of an Inquiry," New York Times, October 25, 2006.
↑ "Senate, House, & Gubernatorial Results," Congressional Quarterly, November 13, 2006.
↑ Rood, Justin. "WSJ: Gibbons Does the Donor-Favor Two-Step," TPM Muckraker, November 1, 2006.
↑ Kiel, Paul. "WSJ: Nev Gov under Investigation," TPm Muckraker, February 15, 2007.
↑ Serrano, Richard A. "Cummins fears corruption investigation led to his firing," Los Angeles Times, March 16, 2007.
↑ Email From Cummins to Attorneys
↑ Email From Cummins to Attorneys
↑ Susan Crabtree, "Senior aide implicated," The Hill, March 7, 2007.
↑ Roche, Jr., Walter F. "Key Democrat calls for Gonzales to resign," Boston Globe, March 12, 2007.
↑ Kiel, Paul. "Schumer: Gonzales Staffer 'Will Not Become The Next Scooter Libby'," TPM Muckraker, March 13, 2007.
↑ Tapper, Jake and Cindy Smith. "EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton Calls for Gonzalez' Removal," ABC News, March 13, 2007.
↑ Kellman, Laurie. "Sununu calls for ouster of Gonzales," Associated Press, March 15, 2007.
↑ "Second Republican suggests Gonzales should go," USA Today, March 15, 2007.
↑ Bennett, William Finn. "Issa: 'Congress was lied to'," North County Times, March 15, 2007.
↑ "Strategist Says Gonzales Is "Finished"," CBS/AP, March 15, 2007.
↑ Rowley, James and Robert Schmidt. "Bush Official Backs Away From Claim on Prosecutors," Bloomberg, March 16, 2007.
↑ Zuckman, Jill. "Pelosi calls for new attorney general," Chicago Tribune, March 19, 2007.
↑ CQ Staff. "Presidential Hopefuls Speak Up on Prosecutor Dismissals," CQ Politics, March 19, 2007.
↑ Talhelm, Jennifer. "Tancredo: Time for Gonzales to 'Move On'," Associated Press, March 20, 2007.
↑ Kane, Paul and Dan Eggen. "Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys," Washington Post, March 9, 2007.
↑ Rowley, James and Robert Schmidt. "Bush Official Backs Away From Claim on Prosecutors," Bloomberg, March 16, 2007.
[edit]Resources
DOJ-Released Documents Regarding Atty. General Firings, Part I.
DOJ-Released Documents Regarding Atty. General Firings, Part II.
DOJ-Released Documents Regarding Atty. General Firings, Part III.
DOJ-Released Documents Regarding Atty. General Firings, Part IV.
DOJ-Released Documents Regarding Atty. General Firings, Part V.
DOJ-Released Documents VI.
DOJ-Released Documents VII.
[edit]Articles and Commentary
The most recent articles and commentary are for March 2007 - Part 1 (March 1-15) and March 2007 - Part 2 (March 16-31).

[edit]Related SourceWatch Resources
Bush administration cronyism and incompetence
Bush's judicial nominees
Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007 (S.214)
Recess appointments made by President George W. Bush
Republican 'culture of corruption'

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy"
Categories: George W. Bush | Law | Scandals | Congresspedia

This page was last modified 20:48, 21 March 2007. This page has been accessed 2,144 times. Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. Privacy policy About SourceWatch Disclaimers
SourceWatch is an encyclopedia of people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda. It is a project of the Center for Media & Democracy; email bob AT sourcewatch.org