BREAKING: CREW wants Special Prosecutor to investigate potential criminal violations in U.S. Attorney firings
CREW wants the immediate appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate potential criminal violations related to the recent dismissals of eight U.S. Attorneys. Recent revelations indicate that a top-ranking Department of Justice official knew that statements made by top Department officials were not true. Clearly, the Department of Justice cannot investigate itself and prosecute the misconduct of DOJ officials. CREW also asked the Department of Justice’s Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the situation.
CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan expressed our position:
Given the murky nature of this situation and the unresolved questions of what top level Justice officials knew, when they knew it and whether they deliberately withheld information from Congress, Attorney General Gonzales should immediately appoint a Special Prosecutor. Both Congress and the American people deserve a full accounting of the truth behind the firings of the U.S. Attorneys. If the attorney general doesn’t want to see the truth come out, perhaps the Inspector General will.
In an attempt to move this process forward, CREW sent a letter today to Attorney General Gonzales asking for the immediate appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate the potential criminal violations.
The firing of the U.S. Attorneys now appears to have implicated wrongdoing in the Executive Branch. Three members of Congress have already become enmeshed in the scandal for improperly contacting sitting U.S. Attorneys about pending cases. CREW has already sought ethics investigations of Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Representative Doc Hasting (R-WA) in this same matter.
The letter to Attorney General Gonzales and our news release, which lays out the recent developments in this scandal, can be found here:
In the past few months, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials have testified before Congress that the U.S. Attorneys were asked to resign for performance related reasons, that the White House was minimally involved in the firings and that the Department was in no way attempting to evade the confirmation process for new U.S. Attorneys.
Documents provided by the DOJ to Congress suggest that at least one high-ranking official, D. Kyle Sampson, knew that the statements made to Congress were untrue. If, as it appears, a Department of Justice official allowed other officials to provide inaccurate information to Congress, federal crimes may have been committed. Because DOJ obviously cannot investigate and prosecute the misconduct of its own officials, CREW has called on the attorney general to appoint a Special Prosecutor to handle this matter.
It is clear that at least two officials, former White House Legal Counsel Harriet Miers and Sampson, schemed to fire prosecutors for political reasons. According to press reports, Sampson has acknowledged that he did not tell DOJ officials about the extent of his communications with the White House regarding the firings. Justice officials who testified before Congress, including the attorney general, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Principal Associate Attorney General William Moschella, all told Congress that the White House, though consulted, was not deeply involved in the firing decisions.
Federal law provides that if Sampson knew that he was causing DOJ officials to make inaccurate statements to Congress, he can be prosecuted for the federal crime of lying to Congress even though he did not personally make any statements to Congress. The Special Prosecutor should investigate not only Mr. Sampson’s conduct but whether anyone else was involved in formulating the incomplete and erroneous congressional testimony or whether the officials who testified were aware that they were providing imperfect information to Congress.
This scandal is not going away. Instead, it keeps getting worse. Crimes may have been committed and the U.S. Attorney General has an obligation to get to the bottom of this. The only way that will happen is with a Special Prosecutor.
Way to go CREW!
It is so hopeful to see an organization like yours that is truly interested in justice and not just political gamesmanship. Thank you so much for all the hard work you have been doing over the last couple of years. You are strengthening America's Democracy!
More Criminal Violations
here is some more information which should be looked at. if you're like me, a proud American, i think it's time we all get up to speed with what has actually happened since Bush took office in 2000. This video explains alot.
http://freedomtown.org/Site/Freedomtown%20Videos.html
"Must be a Fox News
"Must be a Fox News viewer."
No, I just read more than you. The law expired in 1999. Fitzpatrick was appointed as "special counsel".
The funny papers don't count
Nor do blast faxes from the RNC.
Try again
Read more???
Do you pay attention to much of what you read, rainman?
The guy who prosecuted the case against Libby is named Fitzgerald.
And the congress let the special prosecutor law expire for the very reason that they were afraid something like this would happen once they got the White House.
The fact that the election of 2000 was unconstitutionally meddled in by the supreme court leads me to believe that at least as far back as 1999 the GOP was planning to steal the election of 2000. See the so-called "felon purge" that was subcontracted out to ChoicePoint in Florida.
But you're probably right, let's blame this on Clinton just to be safe.
Dickhead.
Fitzgerald and CREW are American Heros
Fitzerald wore his seersucker suit and prosecuted a very guilty Irving Libby with quiet dedication to justice. Fitzgerald didn't hold daily news conferences in his driveway every morning. He prosecuted without leaks and is an absolute credit to the justice department, unlike Ken Starr. CREW has been highly successful in bringing these kinds of crooked matters to light and also deserve a hearty thanks from every red-blooded American. You should be grateful you turd.
Nice comment Karl ; Another principled conservative
Danger, Danger Will Robinson!!! The Right Wing Theocracy you almost had built is going to crash and burn because of principled progressive organizations like CREW.
special prosecutor
Actually, the AG CAN appoint a "Special Prosecutor" but it seems unliklely that he will do so, given that he will be gone in a couple weeks anyway. Followed closely by Bush and Cheney.
CLINTON FIRED THEM ALL!!!!
How convenient that the left-wing moon-bats forget that Clinton, through Janet Reno, fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. They didn't call Clinton "Slick Willie" for nothing.
No can do, the law that
No can do, the law that created Special Prosecutors expired some years ago. In addition, US attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President. There needn't be any justification for getting rid of them.
If you really want to talk about abuse of power, why don't you ask why Clinton had Janet Reno fire ALL US attorneys in 1993. ALL of them at once ... not just eight.
Clinton and firing US attorneys?
That never happened. Just another b.s. rightwing talking point. This tale will go the way of the "Nancy Pelosi plane" story.
Really?
You need to research a bit. Two minutes of looking turns up..
Another smear by those right wing nuts at the NYT, I guess.
ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS
By DAVID JOHNSTON, (Special to The New York Times); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 1053 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, the
And let's keep hammering you with the TRUTH
Bush I Assistant AG, Stuart Gerson:
"It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind."
Truthiness Alert!
You say it didn't happen, the NYT says it did, you change the topic. When you hammer try to avoid your foot next time, Sparky.
Political Appointments
New Presidents dismiss (nearly) all US attorneys when they come into office. That's how it's been for the past century, and more. Clinton did not abuse power to dismiss US attorneys when he came into office, nor did George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, LBJ, JFK, and Eisenhower.
Once new Attorneys are appointed, they are (rarely) removed, except for incompetence or corruption, and are not to be removed to achieve greater political advantage. It's clear that these 8 were removed to pursue more power for the Republican party, not to pursue justice for America. That's illegal and unethical.
Are you kidding?
Asserting facts not in evidance. Try again when you have a rel story. This is all smoke.
Laws are written by the legislature Karl
Yes, the Special Prosecutor law expired but the Democrats have a majority in the House and the Senate. Presto Chango, Special Prosecutor!!!! Write your Representatives!!!
Clinton's firing all USA's
I have heard this crap until I am fed up with it. Protocol requires all political appointees submit their resignation before the new President assumes office. Then if the President wishes, he may reappoint the USA agin and they would be confirmed by the Senate. In the case of Clinton there were approx. 22-25 USA's that did not submit their resignations and were told by the AG to either submit or be fired and this was along about May or June after the President assumed office in Jan.. And yes, he may have replaced all of the USA;s from Bush I term but again it was his right.
My understanding is that Bush II did the same when he assumed office.
Clinton Firing All USA's
Sorry, your wrong. The firing (yes firing, Reno gave them 10 days to clear out) of the 93 sitting USA's was unprecedented.
Prior changeovers had been accomplished over time as their terms came up, but Clinton didn't have time for that as he wanted (needed?) the Arkansas USA out and a compliant USA in to make sure the "right" thing was done with the Whitewater investigation. This administrations actions may be wrong, I am waiting for an answer other than "just because" why getting rid of 9 USA's 6 years into a term in bad but 93 at the start is ok, but pretending that Clintons actions represented business as usual is incorrect.
You still don't get it
Here is what Stuart Gerson, Assistant Attorney General under the first Bush, had to say about what Clinton did:
"It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind."
Emphasis mine to point out that the right wing's precious St. Ronnie did the exact same thing Clinton would later do.
As it is, I believe this guy would know a hell of a lot more about the process than you ever would, so shut up already
US atorneys firing
They still serve at the President's behest and can be removed at any time, including the beginning of a second term, and for any reason. Gerson further went on to say that the only issue he has with this present firing is the clumsy way it was handled - hardly scandalous.
Reading Comprehension Challenged
Wrong buzzard breath, try to address the point. The question was not whether he had a right, he did, or whether he got them all, it was the manner of the transition. The idea that the Clinton actions were routine is wrong, previous to Clinton it had been over time in an orderly way. Clinton couldn't afford that so they were out the door immediatly.
And what's this attempt to cut off debate? Are you trying to censor me? Oh the horror.
Is that you kArL?.....
Is that you kArL?.....
you are woefully misinformed
Must be a Fox News viewer.
US Attorney/AG scandal
How in heaven's name do we expect Gonzales to appoint the Special Prosecuter that might eventually indict him? As for those who believe no crimes were committed here besides Sampson misleading congress, how about the intent of all these firings, namely, to interfere in close elections in key states, guaranteeing a Republican Majority in perpetuity, aka, Karl Rove's Master Plan? I live here in NM, and for the life of me I couldn't figure out how Heather Wilson squeeked back into her seat---now I have some idea.
Disagree with CREW
Calling for a special prosecutor is going to produce a backlash.
Although I agree that this is a big black eye for the administration, I find it highly unlikely that the AG violated any criminal laws. The violation here was a series of partisan firings - this is obvious in a common sense way. But to connect the firings beyond a reasonable doubt to the protection of criminal acitivty is a hurculean task.
Hysterical
This guy is hysterical. A backlash? Are you kidding me? These crooks have hi-jacked our justice system so they can use it a pure political weapon against any prosecutor who doesn't remember who owns them. You must be some kind of genius dude. Yea, lets just ignore this entire situation. I'll bet you would have been reluctant to ask the Nazi's to stop gassing Jews because they may not like it. I don't make the Nazi comparison lightly sir. You are an Authoritarian Follower of the worst type. What happened to all those praised conservative principles of truth and justice and the American way. Oh yea, you're a spineless toad and anything the great and all powerful leader does is A-OK! What a joke. We better not make waves or the big men might get really angry! Oh noooooooo.....
"...highly unlikely the AG violated any criminal laws."
I beg to differ. The AG went in front of congress and said this was nothing more than a personnel matter when he knew damn well it was a well-planned removal of competent people using a provision of the PATRIOT act that had been inserted surreptitiously to make way for people who were more amenable and malleable in the eyes of the administration.
This isn't the first time this smarmy little bastard has lied to congress and if he remains it won't be the last. Every time he appears he should be put under oath.
Get your facts straight
Firing US Attorneys has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PATRIOT ACT! They serve at the leisure of the President...it is a coattail job. The Patriot Act COULD be used to replace those Attorney's without them being confirmed by Congress using a provision of the Patriot Act...but even then, it is not necessary...someone (probably within that office...possibly the First Assistant) would serve at the Acting US Attorney for that Judicial District until an appointment is confirmed. Where is the breach of law?
I agree with calling for Special Prosecutor or Special Counsel
Other than the obvious candidate, Patrick Fitzgerald, Patrick Collins is another person to keep in mind as well as many hardworking and honest attorneys that are up for this crisis. A special prosecutor for an investigstion into the canning of the U.S. Attorney is needed. Now that Kyle Sampson bailed out today, Gonzales must be next in line to get fired.
SP Biloxi
Call For Special Prosecutor
Patrick Fitzgerald has a lot of free time on his hands these days. Maybe he is available after St Patrick's Day? Do you think the Marianis islands investigation, replacement of the prosecutor and subsequent dropping of the investigation is a clear case of obstruction of justice? Thanks for your good work.
Syndicate this content
Michigan - Carl Marlinga
Last year US Attorney Stephen Murphy tried popular Dem. Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga for a bs campaign finance violation. US Rep. Candace Miller requested the prosecution. Marlinga was aquited but his political career was ruined. This should also be investigated.