Documents Reveal Personal Side of Showdown With U.S. Attorneys
Setting aside just for a moment the politics vs. performance controversy, the E-mails released Monday by the Justice Department reveal in sometimes funny, sometimes poignant ways just how much U.S attorneys owe their livelihoods and pensions to their masters in Washington, how much they cherish their stature in their districts, and how their lives get upended when they are abruptly terminated.
The release of the 3,000 pages–along with the declaration that officials were prepared to conduct interviews and testify at hearings to prove they were innocent of political shenanigans in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys–undoubtedly will set off the next frenzied volley of point-counterpoint in the ever escalating crisis that is threatening to bring Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's career in Washington to an ignominious end.
But the E-mails also shine a light on the personal give-and-take between U.S. attorneys and their bosses.
Many of the fired U.S. attorneys went through a constantly shifting landscape of emotions–from wanting to stay on the good side of their bosses to the searing anger that came when they felt betrayed by the bad report cards. The E-mails also show the sausage-making aspect of the Justice Department's communications effort, as officials tried to manage the escalating crisis to divert reporters from the negative aspects of the story, and how officials internally debated which U.S. attorneys should and should not testify and how damaging their testimony would be if they did.
The U.S. attorneys periodically connect to their mother ship–the Justice Department–through the deputy attorney general (DAG) of the United States. The DAG handles the day-to-day running of the 110,000-employee department and has an overwhelming workload, including managing critical national security matters. But he must also keep an eye on the 93 U.S. attorneys nationwide.
The DAG in this case is Paul McNulty, a seasoned former congressional staff member, a veteran senior Justice official who led the transition team for then Attorney General John Ashcroft, and a former U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. Eternally soft-spoken, McNulty has come under fire from Democrats on the Hill for some of his testimony relating to the firings.
While those allegations have yet to be settled, what's clear is the preternatural good humor and patience with which McNulty fielded dozens of "Importance: High" E-mails from these U.S. attorneys who were slowly becoming aware of their plight, shocked that soon they would be out of a cushy job but trying to keep their relationship with their boss, the DAG, on an even keel, at least early in the game, and then slowly pushing back.
Take, for instance, a series of E-mails from David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney from New Mexico, to McNulty. "Happy New Year! Hope your holidays were as pleasant and relaxing as mine were," Iglesias wrote to McNulty on January 3 in an E-mail inquiring as to what would be a good time to call McNulty "to discuss what day my resignation will become effective" as well as a possible two-month extension. Fearing that McNulty would think he was about to confront him over the firing, Iglesias added a soothing postscript:
"I assure you," he told McNulty, "my call will be pleasant and respectful." The chat must have gone well, because on January 11, Iglesias is back in touch with McNulty. This time, he's grateful. "Paul: First, on behalf of my wife and kids," Iglesias wrote, "thank you for going to bat for me regarding the extension." Iglesias informed McNulty that he had been a "veritable whirling dervish in sending out emails, resumes, bios phone calls, etc." Then, the kicker: "Would you mind," he asked McNulty, "if I list you as a reference?" Iglesias signed off by thanking McNulty for his "support and prayers." Two hours later, Iglesias got a warm response. "You're most welcome, brother," McNulty wrote. "I would be happy to be a reference for you. "
On January 18, U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan of San Francisco, essentially kissing McNulty's ring, conveyed his fealty through an intermediary to McNulty's chief of staff, Michael Elston, who promptly E-mailed McNulty, Gonzales's chief of staff, Kyle Sampson–who has since resigned–and other Justice officials. Ryan, Elston said, was deliberately "not returning calls" from either Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, or another ousted U.S. attorney, Carol Lam. Elston wrote that Ryan was "doing his best to stay out of this," and added that Ryan "wanted us to know that he's still a 'company man.' "
Compared with Iglesias's and Ryan's bombast, perhaps the most distressing exchange of E-mails took place between McNulty and Margaret Chiara, the U.S. attorney in the Western District of Michigan, who was growing increasingly anxious over her imminent firing. She wrote to McNulty on a Sunday afternoon in early November saying that Elston had "conveyed professionally shocking news" that the White House would be contacting her for her resignation shortly after the November 7 election. Unlike Iglesias's classically male, self-assured, breezy, "Can I use you for a reference" E-mail, or Ryan's glad-handing, Chiara's was the essence of sorrow and yes, neediness.
"While I live in hope that this dire prediction is untrue," Chiara wrote to McNulty, "I am contacting you because I need assistance to remain in federal service with a comparable compensation or, quite frankly, I will lose everything that I have been working toward for the past five years." Saying she hoped she could count on McNulty, Chiara signed off as, simply, Margaret.
In the ensuing series of E-mails, Chiara continued to lay her woes on McNulty, calling the timing of her departure "surprising and distressing." She told him that she was "assiduously" seeking other jobs but reminded McNulty that because of her "exemplary" five-year tenure, she deserved "consideration and flexibility." Her financial situation, she said, required "continuous employment." The long-forbearing McNulty responded: "Margaret, I'm not avoiding you," he wrote, saying he'd been swamped. He promised to call her in the morning. "Thanks for your patience," he wrote.
When McNulty suggested an immigration judgeship as a way out for Chiara, though, he was rejected because it would be "the wrong next step for me," Chiara, suggesting three other positions that she would love to have. "Thank you for accompanying me on this journey! Margaret." Then in February the anger set in. Word was getting out that she was to be fired.
"I have expended an enormous amount of effort trying to contain this situation," Chiara wrote to McNulty. She later expressed her feelings of betrayal that she had been lumped in with the other U.S. attorneys as a poor performer. "Know that I am considered," said Chiara, "as a personification of ethics and productivity." She said the "notoriety of being one of the USA-8" coupled, she said, "with my age being constantly cited in the press" was becoming a "formidable obstacle to securing employment."
Perhaps the most damaging series of E-mails was exchanged regarding the removal of the U.S. attorney from Arkansas, Bud Cummins, who made way for a former adviser to Karl Rove, Tim Griffin, who had also worked for the Republican National Committee.
On February 1, department officials began preparing to respond to what was sure to be a great political drama: the testimony before Congress by some of the fired U.S. attorneys. Elston sent an E-mail to McNulty, Sampson, and other senior department officials that Cummins had called Elston to let him know that he had been asked to testify and "wanted to know if we wanted him to testify." Sampson sent back an anxiety-ridden E-mail almost immediately, with a series of rhetorical questions.
"I don't think he should," an alarmed Sampson responded. "How would he answer:"
"Did you resign voluntarily?"
"Were you told why you were being asked to resign?"
"Who told you?"
"When did they tell you?"
"What did they say?"
"Did you ever talk to Tim Griffin about his becoming U.S. Attorney?"
"What did Griffin say?"
"Did Griffin ever talk about being AG appointed and avoiding Senate confirmation?"
"Were you asked to resign because you were underperforming?"
"If not, then why?"
"Etc., etc."
The Cummins dismissal would continue to become a thorn in the Justice Department's side, as reporters and Democrats in Congress continued to chew over the irresistible Rove connections. The Cummins firing would also lead to a rift between Gonzales and McNulty, who was trotted out February 6–seemingly well prepped–to offer congressional testimony.
McNulty acknowledged that Cummins had been fired to make way for Griffin but said the firings of the other prosecutors were related to their poor performance. Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, had this interchange with McNulty:
Schumer: "First, Bud Cummins has said that he was told he had done nothing wrong and he was simply being asked to resign to let someone else have the job. Does he have it right?"
McNulty: "I'll accept that as being accurate, as best I know the facts."
Schumer: "So, in other words, Bud Cummins was fired for no reason. There was no cause."
McNulty: "No cause provided in his case, as I am aware of it."
Schumer: "None at all. And was there anything materially negative in his evaluations, in his EARS reports or anything like that? From the reports that everyone has received, he had done an outstanding job and had gotten good evaluations. Do you believe that to be true?"
McNulty: "I don't know of anything that's negative, and I haven't seen his reports, or probably only one that was done during his tenure, but I haven't seen it. But I'm not aware of anything."
Early the next morning, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse sent out an E-mail to Sampson, conveying Gonzales's displeasure over McNulty's testimony.
"The Attorney General is extremely upset," Roehrkasse wrote, regarding the stories on the U.S. attorneys. "He also thought some of the DAG's statements were inaccurate." Roehrkasse then asked Sampson to call him and told the chief Justice spokesperson, Tasia Scolinos, that Gonzales wanted to know how to handle the media.
"I think from a straight news perspective," wrote Roehrkasse, "we just want the stories to die."
In a subsequent press statement, Roehrkasse wrote that Gonzales was upset because "he believed Bud Cummins's removal involved performance considerations and it was that aspect of the DAG's testimony the Attorney General was questioning."
As the crisis escalated, on March 5, White House deputy counsel William Kelley wrote to Sampson saying he had been "tasked" to conduct a meeting with Justice officials "to go over the Administration's position on all aspects of the U.S. Atty issue, including what we are going to say about proposed legislation and why the US Attys were asked to resign." Kelley wanted a meeting "asap," he said.
"Thanks," he wrote, "and sorry to impose." Sampson proposed a time to the Justice crew. "I assume they'll want us to go over there," he wrote. "Thoughts?"