There are some questions I've got for Alberto Gonzales, based on his written statement.
1. You say:
QUOTE
The Committee should also know that, to ensure the independence and integrity of these investigations, and the investigations of congressional committees, I have not spoken with nor reviewed the confidential transcripts of any of the Department of Justice employees interviewed by congressional staff.
Yet someone is accompanying and observing "the confidential" interviews of these DOJ employees. Who is compiling all the results of the interviews with the Judiciary Committees? Why did DOJ insist on having a DOJ representative at these interviews--effectively making the interviews confidential only to the American people? And what is the Department doing with this information?2. You say:
QUOTE
Shortly after the 2004 election and soon after I became Attorney General, my then-deputy-chief-of-staff Kyle Sampson told me that then-Counsel to the President Harriet Miers had inquired about replacing all 93 U.S. Attorneys.
Yet you weren't approved to be Attorney General by the Senate until the end of January 2005, almost three months later. When did this conversation occur? Was it before you were approved by the Senate? Was it after you were approved? Or were there several conversations?
3. You say:
QUOTE
I believed that he was the right person (1) to collect insight and opinions, including his own, from Department officials with the most knowledge of U.S. Attorneys and (2) to provide, based on that collective judgment, a consensus recommendation of the Department’s senior leadership on districts that could benefit from a change.
I recall telling Mr. Sampson that I wanted him to consult with appropriate Justice Department senior officials who would have the most relevant knowledge and information about the performance of the U.S. Attorneys. It was to be a group of officials, including the Deputy Attorney General, who were much more knowledgeable than I about the performance of each U.S. Attorney. I also told him to make sure that the White House was kept informed since the U.S. Attorneys are presidential appointees.
For instance, I recall two specific instances when Mr. Sampson mentioned to me that Harriet Miers had asked about the status of the Department’s evaluation of U.S. Attorneys.
Two part question. First: do you believe a bunch of 30-somethings with no (or effectively no) prosecutorial experience are really the ones with the most "relevant knowledge" to decide to fire USAs with 20 years of experience?I recall telling Mr. Sampson that I wanted him to consult with appropriate Justice Department senior officials who would have the most relevant knowledge and information about the performance of the U.S. Attorneys. It was to be a group of officials, including the Deputy Attorney General, who were much more knowledgeable than I about the performance of each U.S. Attorney. I also told him to make sure that the White House was kept informed since the U.S. Attorneys are presidential appointees.
For instance, I recall two specific instances when Mr. Sampson mentioned to me that Harriet Miers had asked about the status of the Department’s evaluation of U.S. Attorneys.
And second: Except for two mentions of Harriet's involvement, can you detail how much involvement the White House had in this "collective judgment"? Did you know--and authorize--your COS to attend weekly meetings with the White House to discuss these issues?
4. You say:
QUOTE
As you well know, since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department’s top priority has been to protect the Nation from the threat of terrorism.
Yet in one of your first acts as Attorney General, you fired the most experienced terrorist prosecutor in this country:
QUOTE
Despite Kelley's remarkable credentials, Bush never formally appointed him. The recent e-mails unveiled in the congressional probe indicate that Karl Rove began inquiring about U.S. Attorney appointments in January 2005, shortly before the Sampson list was sent to the White House that March. Five days after Sampson's memo, the Sun quoted a White House spokesman as describing Kelley as "an acting U.S. Attorney," which Kelley's office immediately rebutted, saying the spokesman's "lingo is wrong" and that Kelley had been a U.S. Attorney since April 2004, when the judges appointed him. A month later, the new AG, Gonzales, dumped Kelley, the first U.S. Attorney Gonzales dismissed,
How does firing the most experienced terrorist prosecutor in the country benefit the American people and place the fight against terrorism as the top priority?5. You say:
QUOTE
In addition to its responsibility to protect access to the ballot box, the Department is responsible for combating Federal election crimes, such as election fraud and campaign financing offenses. In 2002, the Department launched the Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative, and the investigation and prosecution of these crimes is a priority. With the assistance of the FBI, we have investigated over 300 election crime matters since the start of the Initiative, charged more than 180 individuals with election fraud or campaign financing offenses, and obtained over 130 convictions. At the present time, over 140 election crime investigations are pending throughout the country.
I'm curious if one of those 140 election crime investigations includes Joe Lieberman's slush fund? I'm curious, too, what percentage of those investigations involves Republican "caging"?
6. Finally, you seem to be complaining about the number of Congressional questions you have had to answer:
QUOTE
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with you the Department’s efforts to improve its responsiveness to the Congress, especially questions for the record. You will no doubt recall that responses to the Committee’s questions for the record from my previous hearing more than six months earlier were transmitted to the Committee just hours before I testified before you in January. That performance was not acceptable to me, as I know it was not acceptable to the Committee.
In 2005, Department witnesses testified at 94 congressional hearings. In 2006, that number rose to 111. So far this year, Department witnesses have testified at 30 congressional hearings, and we fully expect this brisk pace to continue in the coming months.
Even as the number of hearings involving Department witnesses has increased, the number of questions for the record submitted to the Department following those hearings has increased at a more dramatic pace. In 2004, the Department provided responses to nearly 500 questions submitted for the record following congressional hearings. In 2005, the Department provided responses to approximately 1,200 such questions. Last year, the total was nearly 1,400.
So far this year, the Department has already provided the Congress with responses to more than 1,200 questions for the record, with a large majority of those responses coming to this Committee. Several hundred additional responses have also already been submitted for interagency clearance prior to submission to the Congress. Most of the responses submitted this year are in response to questions received at hearings held in 2006, but a large number are from hearings held this year, including responses to a large majority of the 430 questions submitted to me following my appearance before the Committee hearing in January. So far this year, the Department has received nearly 1,000 new questions for the record, with roughly three-quarters of them submitted by this Committee.
I appreciate the importance of oversight and the need for the Department to be responsive to the Congress. I believe the Department has taken steps to respond to questions for the record in a more timely manner, and I intend to see to it that we continue to do so.
In 2005, Department witnesses testified at 94 congressional hearings. In 2006, that number rose to 111. So far this year, Department witnesses have testified at 30 congressional hearings, and we fully expect this brisk pace to continue in the coming months.
Even as the number of hearings involving Department witnesses has increased, the number of questions for the record submitted to the Department following those hearings has increased at a more dramatic pace. In 2004, the Department provided responses to nearly 500 questions submitted for the record following congressional hearings. In 2005, the Department provided responses to approximately 1,200 such questions. Last year, the total was nearly 1,400.
So far this year, the Department has already provided the Congress with responses to more than 1,200 questions for the record, with a large majority of those responses coming to this Committee. Several hundred additional responses have also already been submitted for interagency clearance prior to submission to the Congress. Most of the responses submitted this year are in response to questions received at hearings held in 2006, but a large number are from hearings held this year, including responses to a large majority of the 430 questions submitted to me following my appearance before the Committee hearing in January. So far this year, the Department has received nearly 1,000 new questions for the record, with roughly three-quarters of them submitted by this Committee.
I appreciate the importance of oversight and the need for the Department to be responsive to the Congress. I believe the Department has taken steps to respond to questions for the record in a more timely manner, and I intend to see to it that we continue to do so.
Your point is unclear. Are you suggesting you can't handle the pace of questions sparked by your actions of the last two years? Because if you are, I can suggest a couple of quick remedies for the overload of questions. After all, if the people involved in questionable actions no longer oversee the department, the number of questions is bound to decline precipitously. Secondly, there are a number of times during the USA scandal when, records show, your office put aside difficult questions (such as why USAs were fired or whether you could produce EARs for the fired USAs). Are we asking you questions that are simply too difficult? Or is it simply that your department is unwilling--or unable--to answer questions that any well-managed organization should have at the tip of their hands.
Because it sure seems like these questions are taxing your abilities. If so, I think we can find some way to fix that.
Trackback