Fitzgerald Ranked During Leak Case

WA Po/ Drudge ^ | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 | Dan Eggen and John Solomon

[woofie]

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.

The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show.

Fitzgerald's ranking adds another dimension to the prosecutor firings, which began as a White House proposal to remove all 93 U.S. attorneys after the 2004 elections and evolved into the coordinated dismissal of eight last year, a move that has infuriated lawmakers and led to calls for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to resign.

The Justice Department last night gave the House and Senate Judiciary committees 3,000 pages of new documents related to the firings, including one e-mail that says Gonzales was "extremely upset" by Senate testimony Feb. 6 from his deputy, Paul J. McNulty. Gonzales felt that "some of the . . . statements were inaccurate," the e-mail says.

[woofie]

I think Alberto is going bye bye...Im not happy about it but it aint the end of the world ...Bush had better get ready to fight now though ....or he will get sliced up by these folks

[woofie]

Justice officials said Gonzales specifically disagreed with McNulty's statement that a Little Rock prosecutor was fired to make way for a GOP operative. They also said the new documents show that political motivations were not a factor in the firings.

[conservative in nyc]

On Dec. 5, two days before seven U.S. attorneys were fired, McNulty admitted in an e-mail to Sampson that he was having second thoughts about firing Bogden, the U.S. attorney for Nevada, whose record provided no obvious performance issues or policy differences.

Nonsense. There concerns by some in the administration that Bogden (along with Charlton from Arizona) was flat out unwilling to prosecute obscenity cases. (See page 32 at this link).

[Michael.SF.]

Bush had better get ready to fight now though

Why 'now'?

He has demonstrated a singular willingness to avoid domestic political confrontation for six years. The fact that Gonzalez is about to be sacrificed should come as no surprise.

I use to think he was a 'Texas' gentlemen, now I am thinking he is a putz, one which that is going to cost us the Presidency in '08.

[conservative in nyc]

By the way, that Fitzgerald wasn't highly ranked proves absolutely nothing. No one could objectively state that Fitzgerald has been loyal to the administration, and that was one of the things that U.S. Attorneys were being rated on (which is a perfectly legitimate thing to rate - the administration is SUPPOSED to set policy for the U.S. Attorneys to follow. Elections are SUPPOSED to have consequences). But as far as I know, Fitzgerald was NEVER on anyone's hit list to be fired.

I'm waiting for one of these MSM sources to post the actual e-mails received today so that I can point out how truly distorted their reporting has been.

[Always Right]

I use to think he was a 'Texas' gentlemen, now I am thinking he is a putz

Bush's unwillingness to fight the Democrats and the media has been his #1 shortcoming of his presidency.

[Slings and Arrows]

Fitzgerald was rank before, during, and after the leak case.

[hosepipe]

[... Fitzgerald Ranked During Leak Case ..]

He was parasiting the treasury on a non crime.. milking it for obscene wages..

[cookcounty]

"Nonsense. There concerns by some in the administration that Bogden (along with Charlton from Arizona) was flat out unwilling to prosecute obscenity cases"

Cold you please summarize re Bogden and Charlton vis-a-vis the obscenity issue? the PDF file is extremely difficult to read (the highlighted portions are essentially obliterated).

If Schumer screams too loudly about this, some will accuse him of being head of the Porno Party Campaign Committee. I might be one of them.

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

They can huff and puff, but they can't blow him down. If President Bush stands strong in the Spirit of the Lord, God is going to make these high minded, self righteous hypocrites, the laughing stock of American politics.

[conservative in nyc]

Cold you please summarize re Bogden and Charlton vis-a-vis the obscenity issue? the PDF file is extremely difficult to read (the highlighted portions are essentially obliterated).

Whoops. I mentioned the wrong page at the link. The relevant e-mail is on page 36 at link. It is not redacted and isn't all that blurry.

The e-mail is from Brent Ward of the DOJ to Kyle Sampson. It is dated September 20, 2006 and entitled "Obscenity cases". It states, in part, "We have two U.S. Attorneys who are unwilling to take good cases we have presented to them. They are Paul Charlton in Phoenix (this is urgent) and Dan Bogden in Las Vegas. In light of the AG's comments at the NAC to "kick butt and take names", what do you suggest I do?"

I have no proof that the USAs ultimately didn't take the cases after pressure was placed on them. But their initial unwillingness to take on these cases IS a policy difference with the administration, which has set up a DOJ task force for obscenity cases.

[conservative in nyc]

Boy, the Washington Post didn't bother reading the new set of e-mails much before making their statement about Bogden. There's a lot more detail about the Nevada USA's refusal to cooperate in an obscenity investigation in an e-mail from Brent Ward, starting on page 34 here.

And this is in only the second set of new e-mails released by the DOJ to the House Judiciary Committee -- they needn't have skimmed very far to find it. All of the released e-mails are available on the House Judiciary Committee's website.

[Howlin]

I just cannot get over this latest "scandal."

Just imagine the White House being 'involved' in deciding which attorneys carried out its agenda. The nerve of Bush, following the Constitution! Just imagine!!! (Who exactly do these people think WE are -- idiots?)

On the other hand, what do you think the reactions would have been if the DOJ had carried out these firings WITHOUT asking the White House.

What a bunch of BS this story is.

[Dahoser]

Agreed, but when the administration allows these stories to go on and on gathering steam, this is the result. Plus, it really helps when the Congressional Republicans hide under their desks.

That's one thing about the RATS, they close ranks behind their own. The Stupid Party does the same: they also close ranks behind the RATS. Just look at how Denny Hastert went into the tank for William "Cold, and I Mean Cold Cash" Jefferson.

[CutePuppy]

Aside from having the name "Fitzgerald" and that he "ranked" in the article, I don't see how it hurts administration. Wasn't every US Attorney "ranked"? And he "ranked" in the middle, as "No recommendation; have not distinguished themselves either positively or negatively.", which is much higher than he should've been.

Also, from the article :
"Fitzgerald has been widely recognized for his pursuit of criminal cases against al-Qaeda's terrorist network before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and he drew up the official U.S. indictment against Osama bin Laden. He was named as special counsel in the CIA leak case in December 2003 by then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who had recused himself."

Was not he named by his pal Comey?

And this next one speaks very much in favor of Alberto, and should hit McNulty hard:

"In the wake of McNulty's Feb. 6 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales was furious with how the deputy attorney general characterized the departure of Little Rock U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins It was explained as a move to insert Tim Griffin, a former White House political aide, into the slot.

In an e-mail, Justice's deputy communications director, Brian Roehrkasse, wrote to Sampson and another aide: "The attorney general is extremely upset with the stories on US attys this morning. He also thought some of the DAG's statements were inaccurate. . . . I think from a straight news perspective we just want the stories to die."

Roehrkasse said in a statement last night: "The Attorney General was upset because he believed Bud Cummins' removal involved performance considerations and it was that aspect of [McNulty's] testimony the Attorney General was questioning."

Maybe WH is looking for replacement not of Gonzales, but McNulty? That would be a very hard hit for Democrats, and would absolutely drive them McNutty.

I really don't see any damage here, more like silver lining.

[CutePuppy]

Just imagine the White House being 'involved' in deciding which attorneys carried out its agenda.

Just like Karl Rove was "involved" in Plame "leak", just because Cooper called him and asked him about her in passing. It's like, "Congratulations, Karl, you're now 'involved'".

The word "involved" media kept repeating as justification for Bush to fire Rove and anybody else in WH who even said anything about the case. They are now repeating the script with another "scandal".

[Vaquero]

And Bush should have fired each and every one of the US Attorneys in 2001....

[mewzilla]

FR search using keywords Clinton Holdovers

43 should've fired a lot of people.