by Tom Hamburger and David G. Savage
Karl Rove and other officials in George W. Bush's White House played an active role in the firing of the top federal prosecutor in New Mexico, according to documents released Tuesday that also show Bush political aides tried to influence Justice Department officials on other matters.
The e-mails and interview transcripts made public by the House Judiciary Committee show Rove and other White House aides paying particular attention to complaints from Republican officials in New Mexico that U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias had failed to help their election prospects by prosecuting alleged instances of voter fraud.
Iglesias was fired in 2006, one of nine dismissals of U.S. attorneys that Democrats said were motivated by politics. The firings became the subject of a long-running political fight in Washington.
House Democrats called Rove the driving force in several of the firings and said the new evidence confirmed that partisan politics played an unusual role in the dismissals.
"Honest and well-performing U.S. attorneys were fired for petty patronage, political horse-trading and, in the most egregious case of political abuse of the U.S. attorney corps -- that of U.S. Attorney Iglesias -- because he refused to use his office to help Republicans win elections," said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in a written statement.
Rove, who was Bush's top political advisor, has said he merely passed objections to the Justice Department about some of the U.S. attorneys. In a statement Tuesday, he said the newly released documents supported his position.
"They show politics played no role in the Bush administration's removal of U.S. attorneys," Rove said, "that I never sought to influence the conduct of any prosecution, and that I played no role in deciding which U.S. attorneys were retained and which replaced."
See the full story about Karl Rove's involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors in Tribune newspapers and here in the Swamp:
When the unusual midterm firings of the U.S. attorneys came to light early in 2007, the Bush administration denied that the White House played a role. Then-Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales initially referred to the dismissals as a routine personnel matter.
But several congressional hearings and a lengthy report by the Justice Department's inspector general released last year showed that Bush aides in both the White House and the Justice Department were closely involved in the firings.
The new documents were produced as part of an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, which subpoenaed Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and questioned both in recent weeks.
A current federal prosecutor, U.S. Atty. Nora Dannehy, also has been investigating the firings to see if any laws were violated. The House documents were forwarded to Dannehy, who has already interviewed Rove and Miers.
Democrats say the documents show that top Bush administration officials breached a tradition of generally keeping U.S. attorneys free of political interference.
In the case of Iglesias, the new documents show that White House officials held an active conversation about his performance.
"I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM USATTY," wrote J. Scott Jennings, a Rove aide in the Office of Political Affairs, to another White House aide, referring to Iglesias. New Mexico lawmakers "are really angry over his lack of action on the voter fraud stuff. Iglesias has done nothing. We are getting killed out there."
Miers told House members at a closed hearing that Rove called her while he was on a trip through New Mexico. He was "getting barraged" with complaints about Iglesias and was "agitated" about him.
"It was clear to me that he felt like he had a serious problem and that he wanted something done about it," Miers told House members. She passed Rove's complaints to the Justice Department.
The documents also show that former Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) called both Rove and Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, to lobby for Iglesias' removal.
White House officials were consulted in at least some of the other firings of U.S. attorneys, according to the new documents.
In a 2005 e-mail to Miers, a colleague says that "Karl is fine" with a plan to replace Todd Graves, then the U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Other e-mails say that Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had requested that Graves be replaced.
The 94 U.S. attorneys are appointees of the president and can be ousted by him. By tradition, however, these federal prosecutors are left to carry out their duties without political interference from Washington. The usual term of appointment is four years.
Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), a former prosecutor who led the judiciary committee's questioning of Rove, said the panel's work confirmed that Rove's involvement was much greater than he had admitted before.
"He was the dominant voice," Schiff said in a phone interview from Los Angeles. "The White House involvement began earlier than we had thought, and their input went well beyond what they had stated publicly."
The documents released Tuesday also reveal an unusual White House effort to get the Justice Department to help a beleaguered Arizona Republican congressman on the eve of the 2006 election.
News accounts in early fall 2006 had reported that then-Rep. Rick Renzi was under FBI investigation for pursuing a federal land transfer in which he had a hidden financial stake.
According to Miers' interview with the House committee, one of Rove's subordinates contacted Miers, who called then-Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty to seek a statement that would have "vindicated" Renzi.
Miers said she was concerned about leaks to the news media that the FBI was investigating Renzi, and she called McNulty to ask whether someone in Renzi's situation could be "vindicated in the event that nothing is going on." Miers said she was told that this kind of statement was not customary under Justice Department guidelines.
Nonetheless, the transcript of Miers' interview shows that a few days after she made her request, unnamed Justice Department officials told reporters in Arizona that the Renzi investigation was preliminary and that news stories about the inquiry contained unspecified inaccuracies.
Renzi was reelected, but in February 2008 he was indicted in a federal conspiracy case that alleged he used his position in Congress to influence a federal land deal that yielded him hundreds of thousands of dollars. He later stepped down from his congressional committee assignments and left office when his term expired after the November election. He has yet to come to trial.
The newly released Judiciary Committee documents could also become an issue in the closely fought race for governor in New Jersey, where a former Republican U.S. attorney, Chris Christie, is running against incumbent Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine.
In his testimony last month, Rove revealed that Christie talked with him twice in the last few years about running for governor. By tradition, U.S. attorneys eschew politics after they assume office.
Christie has recently been fending off attacks from Corzine that he was close to the Bush White House.
"I talked to him twice in the last couple of years . . . not regarding his duties as U.S. attorney, but regarding his interest in running for governor," Rove told the House committee, "and he asked me questions about who -- who were good people that knew about running for governor that he could talk to."
Rove's testimony has already been noted in New Jersey. The Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor told the Newark Star-Ledger on Tuesday that Rove's statements appear to contradict Christie's claim that he was not preparing to run for governor while still serving as U.S. attorney.
Comments
Karl Rove is your classic liar. History will show that he was a self-serving ideologue--hardly the "patriot" he paints himself to be.
Posted by: kathryn | August 12, 2009 7:35 AM
Since Federal Prosecutors serve att he pleasure of the president anc can be removed at any time for any reason, what's the big deal?
And if this IS a big deal, why aren't these crack reporters looking into why federal charges were dropped against some of Obama's Black Panther thugs for attacking people in like to vote last year? Isn't the interference of federal prosecution by the Obama campaign machine questionable?
I suppose that it is too much to expect integrity from a Tribune reporter these days.
Posted by: Dan C | August 12, 2009 7:45 AM
So the firing of federal procesutors by other presidents( both democrate and republican) were OK ?
It's just the one fired under President Bush's administration where evil?
Ahhhhh...now I get it !!!
Posted by: Stan in Chicago | August 12, 2009 8:02 AM
Throw all of those NeoCons in jail and throw away the key. The Bush&Cheney Regime has stolen our country, our treasury and our future. Some one better go to jail for those crimes against America !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | August 12, 2009 8:59 AM
Bush fired some federal prosecutors and his Chief of Staff was involved. Big yawn.... This is news because?
The president is the chief executive and all federal prosecutors serve at his pleasure. If he wants to replace them he can do so for any reason, and presidents have exercised that privilege for years. That's the way things work. If any federal prosecutor has a problem with that they need to find another way to exercise their law license.
Tom and Dave need to work a little harder at finding things to write about that matter.
Posted by: Thomas | August 12, 2009 9:27 AM
Where was all the hue and cry when Clinton fired ALL of the US attorneys upon taking office?
Posted by: spec4 | August 12, 2009 9:27 AM
Where was the House Judiciary Committee when the Clinton administration stepped in and fired 93 -- yes 93! -- U.S. Attorneys?! Oh, right, looking the other way.
Posted by: Dave | August 12, 2009 9:36 AM
Agree with previous posters. . . What about "serving at the pleasure of the President" don't the Dems understand here? (It's not like these were motivated by race, sex, religion or other protected class . . . and as we know from practice, politics does not count in this instance.) And why does it only apply one way?
Posted by: Bob | August 12, 2009 9:51 AM
Just another story by a liberal to keep blaming the Bush Presidtency for everything that is wrong, has been wrong, and will be wrong Amen.
Posted by: clarence | August 12, 2009 9:55 AM
Where was this outrage when the Clinton administration fired 93 -- yes, 93! -- U.S. Attorneys upon taking over the Oval Office? Oh, but THEY weren't politically-motivated.
I guess I don't understand and maybe someone can help: Is GWB a moron? Or an evil genius? I mean, can you people make a simple decision on this one?
Posted by: Dave in Illionis | August 12, 2009 10:05 AM
Sounds to me like a certain administration is trying to deflect coverage away from its failed health care policy.
and to echo other people here: "Federal Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president"
Posted by: cp | August 12, 2009 10:12 AM
Karl Rove = Rasputin for the 21st century
Posted by: Smoke Filled Room | August 12, 2009 10:14 AM
Go to Rove.com and see the rest of the story. As usual the liberal press would rather find anything on Bush/Rove than report accurately on Obama's Health Care plan to limit seniors options, Cap & Trade to bankrupt the country with taxes on everything, the lies Obama tells us daily[transparency, no lobbyists, tax cheats, teleprompter readings] which these reporters ignore for the act of Bush firing federal prosecutors , which is perfectly legal. When Clinton fired 56 federal prosecutors none of these "journalists" said one thing, because it was in his power as it was in Bush's power.
The hate for Bush and Rove goes beyond a normal dislike of a President's policies and is insane. These people should attend sessions for the mind.
Posted by: Florida Jim | August 12, 2009 10:16 AM
This article is factually inacurate and the headline is misleading. Rove provided justice department officials evidence that the US Attorney was not doing his job effectively, dropping the ball on high profiles cases, and not prosecuting some because of politics. He didn't do anything out of line with proper process.
Where was all the scrutiny when the Clinton White House fired all the US Attorneys back in the early 90's?
Posted by: joliet jay | August 12, 2009 10:17 AM
I would suggest that the Obama administration start looking forward instead of finding fault with the Bush Adm.
The next Adm. could do the same thing to them, there is a lot more in this adm. to go back on and its only 8 months old.
The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president you idiots.
Posted by: Lou | August 12, 2009 10:18 AM
Aside from being an unpatriotic coward and hypocrite, Turd Blossom Rove is delusional and has commited crimes against the United States and the Constitution. If anyone who posts here, ignored any type of subphoena, there would be a warrant out for your arrest. This man is a pathological liar and should immediately be arrested and prosecuted.
Posted by: Doug R. | August 12, 2009 11:00 AM
To those who ask why no one cared when Bill Clinton fired all of the US attorneys upon taking office, and why it's such a big deal that the Bush administration pushed the justice department to fire some, when they serve at the whim of the President:
It is customary for the President, upon taking office, to replace many, and sometimes all, of the US attorneys. That's why it wasn't a big deal then.
However, it is also customary for firings of US attorneys to be solely related to job performance issues, and not politics. In the cases of these US attorneys, they were mostly, if not entirely, fired for political reasons. This is unethical. The justice department and its investigations and prosecutions are supposed to be free of all political influence. Otherwise there is no justice. That's why it's a big deal.
Posted by: x-wizard | August 12, 2009 11:08 AM
The missing part of the story is whether the voter fraud complaints had any merit or were just tools for 'swiftboat' politics.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4276
http://www.gregpalast.com/an-army-of-rove-botscaptain-iglesias-obstruction-of-justice-and-the-theft-of-2008/
Hiring and firing of attorneys -- OK. Using the judicial system to fraudulently win elections -- NOT OK. This is why we won't see good, honest people stepping up to run for offices because they have to waste resources fighting trumped up lies. This holds true for BOTH parties.
Posted by: DD | August 12, 2009 11:18 AM
I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't. I'm sure none of Obama's personnel decisions are political, like the firing of the Inspector General of Americorps.
More importantly - is this reporter's name really "Tom Hamburger"? Awesome!
Posted by: Charlie | August 12, 2009 11:22 AM
Bob wrote: "Agree with previous posters. . . What about "serving at the pleasure of the President" don't the Dems understand here? (It's not like these were motivated by race, sex, religion or other protected class . . . and as we know from practice, politics does not count in this instance.) And why does it only apply one way?"
We'll go slowly here. The US Attorneys were fired because they resisted the demands of Rove, Miers, et al, to politicize their prosecutions.
Also, US Attorneys are normally replaced at the beginning of a President's first term, not in the middle of the second term.
Posted by: Tracy | August 12, 2009 11:23 AM
Still waiting for AG Holder to investigate the firing of that supposedly independent Inspector General after exposing one of Obama's cronies mis-using funds.
Posted by: dalmatian847 | August 12, 2009 11:31 AM
I blame the media and the Democrats on this.
Clinton fired all 93 AT ONCE when he was President and there was no uproar.
Millions of people are out of work and the future looks bleak under this liberalism and we're spending time on Rove!!
This is all a diversion so Obama can keep taking more control over our lives.
Vote against these liberals/Democrats.
Posted by: Alz | August 12, 2009 11:33 AM
More nonsense from the Democraps about the Bush administration. What makes this especially humorous is it comes from John Conyers, who's has already been convicted of fraud and is now under investigation again for stealing state property.
The real liars, Kathryn, would be the Democraps. Lying to them is just like growing hair. It is natural!
Posted by: John D | August 12, 2009 11:42 AM
At this point I don't really care what happens to Karl Rove. I used to, but not any more. I do hope that if they try and pursue some kind of prosecution, they do it in such a way that doesn't distract us too much from current issues.
Posted by: Chris R | August 12, 2009 12:04 PM
Karl Rove lied???? Shock, disbelief, amazement, cat and dogs living together, mass hysteria. Not.
Posted by: Pam | August 12, 2009 12:14 PM
Tracy wrote: The US "Attorneys were fired because they resisted the demands of Rove, Miers, et al, to politicize their prosecutions."
So Tracy, what do you make up Obama's firing of a supposedly untouchable post of Inspector General of Americorps for exposing fraud by on of Obama's cronies? Did you miss that one?
"Also, US Attorneys are normally replaced at the beginning of a President's first term, not in the middle of the second term."
Says who? You? How many has Obama fired thus far? I'll patiently wait for your answer on that one.
Please inform yourself before posting nonsense on a public forum.
Posted by: dalmatian847 | August 12, 2009 12:16 PM
Go to rove.com and read the material that was presented against the attorney. You would have him fired too.
Posted by: Roger | August 12, 2009 12:39 PM
Where's the cry for a special prosecutor? Oh, that's right the Trib editorial board doesn't believe in them, unless the person being investigated is a democrat.
Posted by: athena | August 12, 2009 1:16 PM
dalmatian demands to know about the usual procedures:
From the Washington Post, March 2007 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300776_pf.html):
"Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."
Posted by: Tracy | August 12, 2009 1:20 PM
dalmatian also shouted "So Tracy, what do you make up Obama's firing of a supposedly untouchable post of Inspector General of Americorps for exposing fraud by on of Obama's cronies? Did you miss that one?"
The following article has a slightly different take on that firing - that Americorps IG wasn't exactly a model employee: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/obama_removes_americorps_ig_who_clashed_with_ally.php#more
Posted by: Tracy | August 12, 2009 1:26 PM
It is so sad that none of these comments present any kind of rational discourse on the subject.
Those who are passionately opposed to Obama see nothing wrong and are convinced this investigation that started before he was elected is intended to hide somthing.
The comments on the other side are mostly "told you bush/rove was dirty"
I fear for our country when I hear people completly unwilling to listed to anything that does not fall into lie with their perconcieved ideas.
Dosen't anyone think for themselves, consider, anything anymore? Life is not black and white. We all would be so much better off if we could remember that.
Posted by: quercus | August 12, 2009 1:59 PM
The Republican blind loyalty to Bush is amazing. It the allegations are true, that Rove dismissed federal prosecutors because they would not help Republican's win elections with false corruption charges, this would be bigger than Watergate. Would you be so understanding of a different President forced a federal prosecutor to file false charges against you because you don't support nationalized healthcare. Rove and Bush are the reason the Republican party will not be viable for years to come.
Posted by: pd | August 12, 2009 2:35 PM
Ali Ata testified in the Rezko trial that Rezko told him,
"not to worry , a high profile republican" (assumed to be Kjellander) was working on getting Patrick Fitzgerald fired", and he implied it was Rove. Kjellander of course denied such a conversation, that's what's nice about Illinois, our corrupt politicians don't care if he's republican or demorcrat as long as he's not prosecuting one of their own.
Posted by: Bessie | August 12, 2009 3:13 PM
Tracy, I think Bush fired seven prosecutors in 2004-05? Less then 10 percent. That's a large number?
More ado about nothing.
How about the state-run media investigate the 30 or so czars in the Obimbo administration? Or let's delve deeper into the Marc Rich pardon and Eric Holder's involvement? Or all of the tax cheats in the Obimbo Shaministration? Or how about Rangel, Conyers and his wife, Reid, Peloony, Boxer, Dudd, Corzine, Menendez, Schumer, Conrad, and all the rest of the Dems and their shady little deals and scandals?
Posted by: John D | August 12, 2009 4:02 PM
Bill Clinton is hardly a model for anything.
That includes his personnel policies.
Anyway, US Attorneys cannot be fired "for any reason".
They cannot be fired for an improper or unlawful reason.
They can't be fired because, like Fitzgerald, they are closing in on Scooter and Shooter and S&S would like to make the investigation go away.
They can't be fired because they will not indict someone the White House wants prosecuted.
They can't be fired because they won't back off a prosecution of a friend or ally of the White House.
They can't be fired because they refuse to indict some Senator's political opponent for "vote fraud".
Etc.
Posted by: ornery | August 13, 2009 1:05 AM