Senator Schumer: "We Do Have Evidence" Gonzales Lied Under Oath
Crooks and Liars

Sunday 18 March 2007

During his January 18, 2006 testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Alberto Gonzales said this:

Alberto Gonzales: I would never, ever make a change in a United
States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any
way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do
it.

When asked on Meet the Press this morning if he "had any evidence
that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an
ongoing investigation," Senator Schumer said he does and that the
evidence is "becoming more and more overwhelming."

This is why the prosecutor purge is a genuine scandal. Not only
is there clear evidence that the firings were unprecedented and
purely politically-motivated, but Alberto Gonzales lied about it
under oath and the White House keeps changing it's story. What
conclusion can we draw from these lies and revisionisms other than
they have something to hide? Namely, that these eight prosecutors
were selectively fired because they did not sufficiently politicize
their offices and succumb to pressure to do so, only later to be
fired for "performance-related" reasons despite receiving exemplary
evaluations.

Transcript

MSNBC:

Senator Schumer: [B]ut, in these instances, the evidence is
becoming more and more overwhelming that certain U.S. attorneys, and
only certain ones, not all of them, but certain U.S. attorneys were
fired because either they wouldn't prosecute a case that was
politically advantageous to the White House or they were prosecuting
a case that was disadvantageous to the White House. Every legal
commentator, left, right, center, says you can't do that, that's the
one thing you can't do.

Mr. Russert: Well, let's be specific about this because I want to
show you what the attorney general said in January testifying before
your committee. Let's watch Alberto Gonzales.

(Videotape, January 18, 2007)

Alberto Gonzales: I would never, ever make a change in a United
States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any
way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do
it.

(End videotape)

Mr. Russert: Do you have any evidence that a U.S. attorney was
removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation?

Senator Schumer: We do have evidence. In fact, four of the U.S.
attorneys who were fired believe that played a role in their removal.
Remember, these folks were called up all of a sudden on December 7th.
They thought they were doing, doing a good job. They said, "You're
not doing - you're fired." "Why?" "We can't tell you." Then they say
- there's a little pressure. They say they weren't doing their job
right. We get hold of the evaluations done by their peers, the
judges, everyone in their district, they all get outstanding ratings.
And then it comes out that in four of these instances, they were
asked to pursue cases, individual cases, not a general policy, they
were asked to pursue individual cases that they thought they
shouldn't or they were perhaps pressured to stop. So, yes, there is
evidence there in the - in the U.S. attorney's mind.

But, Tim, we don't have proof yet, conclusive, beyond a
reasonable doubt proof. That's why we have to go forward with the
investigation.

Mr. Russert: But this is a very serious charge, Senator. Let me
show you a map of the United States and where these U.S. attorneys
come from. There you'll see up in Michigan and then we have them in
New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Arkansas, Washington state and two in
California. Where specifically did a U.S. attorney stop investigating
or was a criminal justice case interrupted because of one of their
removals?

Senator Schumer: The most notorious is the Southern District of
California, San Diego. Ms. Lam, the U.S. attorney, had already
brought about the conviction of Duke Cunningham. It came out in the
newspapers that she was continuing to pursue that investigation and
it might lead to others, legislative and others. And in the middle of
this investigation, she was fired. So I asked the deputy attorney
general, "Why was she fired?" He said, "Well, she wasn't doing enough
immigration re-entry cases." I said, "Really?" She - he said, did you
tell - I asked him, "Did you tell her?" She said yes. I said, "Well,
did she improve?" This was back in the summer. "Did she improve?" He
said, "I have no idea." Well, gee whiz, if you're firing someone in
the middle of the most heated political investigation in America,
don't you think you ought to have a reason and know the reason?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_031907A.shtml