Law prof: Patriot Act provision possibly tied to attorney firings didn't 'come out of head of Zeus' David Edwards

Published: Thursday March 8, 2007 Print This Email This A Patriot Act provision which may have led to the allegedly political firing of eight US attorneys "did not come out of the head of Zeus," according to a renowned legal expert. On MSNBC's Countdown Wednesday night, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley analyzed the current "firestorm surrounding the firings." Congress is currently investigating whether the firings were politically motivated, and two of the dismissed attorneys, John McKay and David Iglesias, have already testified that they received inappropriate phone calls from top Republican lawmakers and aides. According to Turley, the provision in the Patriot Act that allowed such firings was no accident. "When you see an administration trying to try to put into legislation something this specific, this tailored, it does not come out of nowhere," said Turley. "It did not come out of the head of Zeus," Turley said. "It came out of the head of someone at the White House who wanted to use it. I think there are serious questions there and this is a scandal that is getting worse by the day." "Theyre not supposed to be constantly looking over their shoulder to see if Karl Rove is coming on them with a wood chipper," Turley said of US attorneys, who "are supposed to retain an element of independence." Turley added, "I have to say that one of the more troubling legacies of the Bush administration has been the politicization of the Department of Justice." The entire interview can be watched below: Excerpts from Wednesday's Countdown transcript: # STEWART: Our third story in the COUNTDOWN, not only did the Bush administration fire eight U.S. attorneys, not only did many of them say they felt pressured, even threatened by GOP officials, not only did the Justice Department claim they were fired for their job performance, then started backtracking, but there is a little-known provision in the Patriot Act that lets the administration put temporary U.S. attorneys in their place without any oversight. More of that in a moment with constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley. First the firestorm surrounding the firings. Congress is investigating. Here is the back story: In January, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate that, quote, I would never ever make a change in the United States attorney for political reasons. But in February, U.S. attorney Bud Cummins was asked to step aside so that one of Karl Roves former aides could take his job. Then yesterday Cummins testified in front of Congress about a phone call he got just last month from the deputy attorney generals chief of staff. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUD CUMMINS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: He indicated that there was a viewpoint held among peoplesome people in the management of the department that if the controversy would continue to be stirred up, that more information, more damaging information might be brought out. I am not attempting to quote him here, but the inference was clear. (END VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: Cummins shared the inferred warning about speaking out in an e-mail to his former colleagues, including fired U.S. attorney Carl Lamb. She was let go while she was in charge of the still ongoing corruption investigation that put Republican Congressman Randy Duke Cunningham in jail. And fired U.S. Attorney John Mckay. Back in 2004 he was called by Republican Congressman Doc Hastings chief of staff, asking about investigations into electoral fraud after a Democrat won the gubernatorial election. And fired U.S. attorney David Iglesias, a month before the 2006 election, he got a call from Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson, who was in a tight race, asking him about ongoing corruption cases against Democratic officials. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID IGLESIAS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: She had been hearing about sealed indictments and she says, what can you tell me about sealed indictments? The second she said any question about a sealed indictment, red flags went up in my head, because, as you know, we cannot talk about indictments until they are made public, in general. We specifically cannot talk about a sealed indictment. I was evasive and non-responsive to her questions. I said, well, we sometimes do sealed indictment for national security cases, sometimes we have to do them for juvenile cases. She was not happy with that answer and then she said well, I guess, I will have to take your word for it. And I saidI dont think I responded. Good bye. That was the substance of that conversation. SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Did you feel pressured during that call? IGLESIAS: Yes sir, I did. (END VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: Two weeks later, Wilsons mentor, Republican Senator Pete Domenici, called Iglesias at home. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) IGLESIAS: He wanted to ask me about the corruption matters or the corruption cases that had been widely reported in the local media. I said, all right. And he said, are these going to be filed before November? I said I did not think so, to which he replied, I am very sorry to hear that, and then the line went dead. SCHUMER: So, in other words, he hung up on you. IGLESIAS: That is how I took that, yes sir. SCHUMER: He did not say goodbye? IGLESIAS: No, sir. SCHUMER: Did you take that is a sign of his unhappiness with your decision? IGLESIAS: I felt sick after word. So I felt he was upset at hearing the answer that he received. SCHUMER: Right, and so is it fair to say that you felt pressured to hurry subsequent cases and prosecution as a result of the call? IGLESIAS: Yes sir, I did. I felt leaned on. I felt pressured to get these matters moving. SCHUMER: And, as you say, it was unusual for you to receive a call from a senator at home while you were the U.S. attorney? IGLESIAS: Unprecedented. It had never happened. (END VIDEOTAPE) STEWART: Lots of phone calls, lots of curious language. To help us out, Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University. Nice to see you Jonathan. JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: Thanks, good to see you. STEWART: All U.S. attorneys are political appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the president. So what is the subtle, or maybe not so subtle message to U.S. attorneys that these eight prosecutors believe they have been fired for political reasons? TURLEY: Well the message is quite clear. First of all, it is very uncommon for U.S. attorneys to be fired or asked to resign. To have eight of them put in this position is truly unprecedented. It does send a very chilling message to other U.S. attorneys that, but for the grace of god, go you. These are very successful U.S. attorneys. And what theyre reporting about these phone calls is extremely unusual and extremely unsettling. STEWART: The attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, told Congress the firings were not political at all. Now, has he backed himself into a corner, if it is proven in some way that they were fired for simply not toeing a political line? TURLEY: Well, this is not the first time that Attorney General Gonzales has been challenged in terms of sworn testimony. He really had to say they were not fired for political reasons. He can hardly say we really needed to use the spot for some kid Karl Rove likes. That would not have gone over very well. What is really getting to a serious point, are the allegations that some of these U.S. attorneys seem to be threatened or thought they were being threatened about speaking to the media or the public. Also, these calls from politicians really took me back. I have to tell you, Im a criminal defense attorney. I have been around the city in the criminal defense system for a long time. I find it shocking that politicians today would feel comfortable picking up a phone and calling the U.S. attorney about sealed indictments. It is other-worldly. STEWART: Lets talk a little bit about the attorneys who testified yesterday. They were subpoenaed by the Senate and after one former U.S. attorney, the one from Arkansas, spoke to the Attorney Generals Office, he said he was so freaked out by this conversation that he wrote this message to his colleagues. Lets put this up on the screen so people can see. He, the deputy chief of staff, reacted quite a bit to the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying, and it seemed clear that they would see that as a major escalation of the conflict, meriting some kind of unspecified form of retaliation. What does this signal to you about the Department of Justice? TURLEY: Well, I think the signal is quite obvious. Remember, were talking about people here who are Republican appointees. These are not professional whistle-blowers. These are the ultimate team players. These are also people who are quite conservative and showed a great deal of loyalty to the administration. What they apparently did not show was a type of all lockstep obedience that the Justice Department wants. I have to say that one of the more troubling legacies of the Bush administration has been the politicization of the Department of Justice. U.S. attorneys are supposed to retain an element of independence. Theyre not supposed to be constantly looking over their shoulder to see if Karl Rove is coming on them with a wood chipper. They are really supposed to be able to conduct themselves in the interest of justice, not just the interest of Karl Rove or the interest of the president alone. It is true, he can fire them for any reason, but they serve justice, not him personally. STEWART: Lets talk about that firing. The folks at Salon.com have another take on this, that its about the Patriot Act, that bypasses Senate approval of justices. This provision allows the Department of Justice to appoint these interim U.S. attorneys, essentially, without oversight and possibly indefinitely. Are we seeing abuse of this? TURLEY: We are, but dont you find it amazing how many senators are saying they had no idea it what is in the bill? STEWART: Yes, Arlen SpecterIt was slipped in, allegedly. Thats the term they used, slipped in. TURLEY: Yes, most people would say gosh, this is a pretty good job. You dont even have to read the bloody bill to vote on it. It is, I think, an example of how these senators for the last four years have done very little to earn their salary. You know, theyve pretty much voted on bills that they did not read and did not understand and constantly say that they are amazed and shocked that this happened. Well, it happened because Congress has not done oversight in four years. I am surprised they even showed up for these votes at all. STEWART: And that change was made just last year and you have these eight attorneys being fired this year. Do you believe that is coincidence? TURLEY: I have to tell you, I dont. When you see an administration trying to try to put into legislation something this specific, this tailored, it does not come out of nowhere. It did not come out of the head of Zeus. It came out of the head of someone at the White House who wanted to use it. I think there are serious questions there and this is a scandal that is getting worse by the day. STEWART: Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at George Washington University, thanks for all the information. TURLEY: Thanks a lot. STEWART: Congress isnt done probing. Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask for testimony from five Justice Department officials, including the deputy attorney generals chief of staff. If they do not come willingly, the Senate says it will subpoena them. # FULL TRANSCRIPT AT THIS LINK



