Schumer’s five questions

March 14, 2007

“When it’s possible the law was broken, admitting mistakes, but not doing anything about it, does not cut it,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said today. “Simply apologizing and firing a fall guy is not enough. We need a full accounting from the White House as to what went on here, the resignation of the Attorney General, and a clarification from the President of his role.”

Specifically, Schumer has five questions.

1. In an email to the White House, Mr. Sampson refers to a “problem” with Carol Lam. What was this “problem” and was Lam’s firing motivated by her investigation into former Congressmen Randy Cunningham and Representative Jerry Lewis?

2. What was the involvement of the President and members of the White House staff on the removal of these eight U.S. Attorneys? (White House spokespeople have portrayed the White House as having only limited involvement in the plan to dismiss these U.S. attorneys. Yet the documents released to the Senate Judiciary Committee clearly show that the idea of removing a group of U.S. attorneys originated in early 2005 with Harriet E. Miers, then serving as the President’s Counsel.)

3. Who at the Department of Justice was responsible for inserting a line into the USA PATRIOT Act in March 2006 that allows the appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval? Did the President know of or approve this effort?

4. Was Karl Rove or Ms. Miers involved in lobbying for the appointment of Tim Griffin as U.S. Attorney in Arkansas?

5. When and why did U. S. Attorney David Iglesias become a target for removal? Was President Bush involved in that decision?

Schumer met with White House counsel Fred Fielding today, who told the Senator that the White House would respond by Friday about whether Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley would testify and under what conditions.

Stay tuned.

Those questions are all well and good but shouldn’t Schumer be asking his fellow members of Congress why NO ONE brought that line up when they re-authorized the Patriot Act after all their gnashing of teeth over changing it?

  • ooooo, this is starting to look really interesting (rubbing hands together with glee………….)

  • I would also ask one of Patrick Leahy’s questions: Why hasn’t Kyle Sampson actually been fired if the “mistakes” that he made were so serious.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8285969

    He puts it nicely:

    “I think it’s extremely important if somebody is trying to manipulate how prosecution is done in this country. It’s hard to think of many things that are more important than that. After all, that affects your liberties, my liberties, and it affects the safety of all Americans.”

  • ***Schumer met with White House counsel Fred Fielding today, who told the Senator that the White House would respond by Friday about whether Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley would testify and under what conditions.***

    The WH wants additional funds for that blasted “surge” thingie. Offer them a trade—unrestricted access to the stooges, or no extra cash for Dubya’s Disaster. Transparency and Troops; it’s a package deal; ALL OR NONE.

    Your move, Mr. President. Do ya feel lucky?

    Well…………….do ya…………….punk?

  • Again with a Friday release? At least this time everyone knows it’s supposed to be coming and will be watching for it.

    Fielding is supposed to be a real DC power player and it was for exactly this kind of firestorm that he was brought on board while poor Harriet was chucked out the door without so much as a by-your-leave.

    Such is the fate of Bush office wives who are of no further use to their master. Poor Harriet. /snark

  • Schumer met with White House counsel Fred Fielding today, who told the Senator that the White House would respond by Friday about whether Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley would testify and under what conditions.

    Answer: Quoting our ever-venerable Vice President: go fuck yourselves, Democrat Party.

    This is the constitutional crisis we’ve been waiting for. Fortunately, it’s one where the majority of Americans can figure it out pretty easily.

  • Wouldn’t is be loverly iis we all could decide when and where and under what circumstances we were willing to subject ourselves to the law.

  • That’s good stuff, racerx, thanks for the link.

    … I saw the attorney general this morning [March 13] in a meeting at the Supreme Court, and I told him that I was very, very unhappy with this — actually quite angry about it.

    MS. NORRIS: And what did he say? Were you at all pleased with his reaction to that statement?

    SEN. LEAHY: He said that he would be happy to come up and brief us some more. I said, “No, I’ve had enough of these briefings where ostensibly we’re told everything; it turns out we weren’t. The next time you come up will be before the full committee; it will be an open session; and you will be under oath.”
    …

    Now that’s pulling punches.

  • Add to that list of questions, if the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, why does the White House only have limited involvement. Should not the president be the Decider who decides if any firings need to take place and why? Why is the Justice Department, according to the White House’s holding this fiasco at arms length, doing the firing of US Attoneys when that should be the role of the president himself?

  • Forget about all of these hearings, testimonies, evidence, and questions. I think that the American public could be spared a lot of grief if the Congress and the Bush administration would come together on this constantly growing issue and agree on the obvious. For starters, the Department of Justice (and its purpose) in this administration could be renamed the Department of Political Harassment and Cover.

    On the other hand, why wait for the consent and participation of the Bush administration. They’ve never cared to accomodate Democrats and progressives for the last six years. If Democrats and progressives would clearly state this obvious theme behind the US attorney firings and the actions and inactions of other US attorneys, it would help silence some of the offensive rationalizations from the wingnuts and give us even greater control of the debate than they have now.

    • Comments are closed.