Leahy: Is Bush directly responsible for firing US Attorneys? Michael Roston

Published: Thursday August 2, 2007





Print This Email This The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee started a hearing on the firing of eight federal prosecutors by asking if President George W. Bush was directly responsible for the termination of the prosecutors. "We are quickly reaching the point where, given the claim of executive privilege, the logical question is what did the President know and when did he know it?" asked Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in his opening remarks. "By his claim of executive privilege, is President Bush now taking responsibility for the firing of such well-regarded and well-performing U.S. attorneys?" Leahy also pointed to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's statement that a cloud was hanging over Vice President Dick Cheney during the trial of his former aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, and compared it to the current situation. "Federal prosecutors observed that such a cloud hangs over the Vice President in the Libby case," he added. "A similar cloud now envelopes Mr. Rove and his partisan political team at the White House, as well." Top Bush adviser Karl Rove was absent at the hearing, claiming that the President's assertion of executive privilege covered all statements that he might make under subpoena. However, an aide to Rove, J. Scott Jennings, was permitted to attend the hearing and testify on a limited basis. Jennings serves as Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Political Affairs. Leahy went on to knock the President's theory of executive privilege. "How can communications with the Justice Department, the RNC and others outside the White House be subject to any claim of 'executive privilege?'" he asked, further pointing out that Rove had spoken in public about the US Attorneys firings on several occasions. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) next criticized the Attorney General for his clarification of his testimony last week on the government's counterterrorism-related spying program. "He is playing a cat and mouse game with Congressional oversight," the Ranking Republican on the committee said. But he went on to suggest that Congress should make an effort to stay out of court. He proposed sitting down with Rep. John Conyers and President Bush to come to a compromise. "We can work it out, we have had disagreements where we have sat down with the President and worked it out," Specter said. "I think we need to finish this investigation and find a way to end the tenure of Attorney General Gonzales so we are not distracted by these issues." Senator Leahy's response to Specter's proposal seemed less than positive. "Let's you and me talk about this afterward," he said to Specter, adding that he was dubious of cooperation because of "this total lack of cooperation, this stonewalling." Jennings notes spam, 'hate mail' after RNC e-mail outed Scott Jennings gave a brief opening statement in which he noted that he would not answer any questions relating to the firing of the federal prosecutors. Senator Leahy started his questioning on Jennings' use of a 'gwb43.com' e-mail account supplied by the Republican National Committee. Jennings at first noted that he had stopped using that particular e-mail address because it had been filled with spam and 'hate mail' after it first emerged in documents turned over to Congressional investigators. Ironically, the Vermont Democrat had just asked the White House aide if he was still using an RNC e-mail account. Jennings confirmed he was, and then said the new address out loud. Leahy then asked Jennings when he chose to use the RNC e-mail account in place of his White House account. "I must respectfully decline to answer your question at this time," he responded. The phrase was repeated often in Jennings' exchange with Leahy regarding such matters as whether or not he had spoken with the President since 2004 on the firing of the prosecutors. "It sounds like the American taxpayers are paying you to stonewall," Leahy said at the end of his time. However, on the use of the e-mails, Jennings conferred with his attorney and answered Leahy's question about the use of the RNC e-mail account. He stated that he preferred the RNC account because he had '24-7 access' to it, in contrast with his White House e-mail account which he could only use in the White House. The answer seemed to vary with that of Sara Taylor, his former boss, who testified earlier before the committee, and said that she simply used the RNC e-mail account out of 'efficiency.' 'I am a current employee,' Jennings insists Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) followed on with the inconsistency between his responses and Taylor's. Taylor, Durbin noted, had answered queries on whether or not she had spoken with the President about the US Attorneys firings. In contrast, Jennings had refused to answer Leahy's yes or no questions despite the senator's protestations that he was not seeking the content of any communications with the President. The current White House adviser argued there was a difference between Jennings and Taylor's place because she testified after quitting her post. "Sara is a former employee," he said. "I am a current employee and I simply do not intend to disobey a directive from the President." Kennedy asks Jennings about Hatch Act violations Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) then turned the discussion to another subject: whether or not presentations given by Jennings and other White House officials to political appointees at federal agencies violated the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act outlaws the use of federal employees for politicking and electioneering. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has investigated the conduct of such briefings, one of which was carried out at the General Services Administration and delivered by Jennings. Administrator Lurita Doan appeared to ask during one such briefing how GSA could help Republican political candidates. Jennings admitted to conducting 'roughly ten' such briefings. The White House aide insisted that the briefings was that had a primarily 'morale boosting' function and that they were 'informative.' He did not believe that they violated the Hatch Act. "It is my understanding that this kind of briefing has been occurring for several years and over the course many administrations and that many people had decided that it does not violate the Hatch Act," he told Senator Kennedy. But when Kennedy pointed to Doan's reported remarks, Jennings refused to answer, saying that Bush's decision on the results of an Office of Special Counsel investigation should be deferred to. "I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to comment on a pending presidential decision," he said. He also claimed he "did not recall" Doan making the remark. However, he did admit that at these briefings he discussed, "specific candidates...in the context of forecasting the political landscape in the forthcoming cycle." Kennedy was dubious. "What real purpose other than overt political activity could these briefings have served?" he asked. Jennings only repeated his insistence that the briefings were 'morale-boosters." Aide consults lawyers frequently on NM meetings In an exchange with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on meetings he had with a pair of New Mexico Republican attorneys, Jennings consulted his attorneys frequently. In addition to his personal attorney, Emmet Flood, an attorney from the White House Counsel's office, also advised the witness on his responses. Jennings confirmed that he had breakfast with Pat Rogers and Mickey Barnett, two Republican attorneys who had actively sought the removal of David Iglesias, the former US Attorney for New Mexico. Jennings, who worked on the President's 2004 campaign in New Mexico insisted that the meeting was social, and that Iglesias' performance did not come up. "It was a social breakfast, I don't remember any conversations about business in general," he claimed. But when Schumer then asked why Jennings had arranged a meeting between Rogers, Barnett, and former Justice Department White House Liaison Monica Goodling, Jennings refused to answer, pointing to the President's assertion of executive privilege. "Can you explain or your counsel explain to me why all these other questions are not privileged, and this one is?" Schumer asked. "You can't just answer the ones you want to answer and not answer the ones you don't want to answer." His counsel responded that the meeting had nothing to do with the US Attorneys. Schumer was suspicious of the response. "Why after a purely social meeting would there then be a memo sent to Monica Goodling on a sensitive matter asking her to see Mr. Barnett," he probed. As Schumer pressed, Jennings asked for leeway. "Senator, I'm doing the best that I can, and believe me, this is likely as frustrating for me as it is for you," the White House aide responded. The remark produced an agitated response from Chairman Leahy. "No, trust me, it is not," he quipped to laughter in the room. Schumer then closed his questioning, doubting that executive privilege was at issue. "It seems to me it depends on the difficulty on the question, not the amount of privilege," he concluded.



