SHHHH - Alberto Gonzales - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Contract was Project X for the NSA
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
mailto:amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stanley J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
__________________________________________________________________________
American Civil Liberties Union, American

Civil Liberties Union Foundation;
American Civil Liberties Union of
Michigan; Council on American-Islamic
Relations; Counsel on American-Islamic
Relations Michigan; Greenpeace, Inc.;
National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers; James Bamford; Larry Diamond;
Christopher Hitchens; Tara McKelvey; and
Barnett R. Rubin,
Plaintiffs
v.
National Security Agency/
Central Security Service, and Lieutenant
General Keith B. Alexander, in his
official capacity as Director of the National
Security Agency and Chief of the Central
Security Service,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 2006-cv-2095

Case No. 2006-cv-2140
Honorable Anna Diggs Taylor
__________________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF ON BEHALF OF AMICI CURIAE STANLEY J. CATERBONE

and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
_________/s/_______________
Date: February 20, 2007
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 174516
717-427-1821 facsimile
amgroup01@msn.com
Page
107
Page11 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
__________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
_____________________________________________________________
I.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ......................3
II.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMICI CURIAE STANLEY J. CATERBONE AND

ADVANCED MEDIA ..5
III.
ARGUMENT 21
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page22 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
__________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
__________________________________________________________________
Stanley J. Caterbone is a private citizen and the majority shareholder of the United States
incorporated business Advanced Media Group.
Stanley J. Caterbone was a whistle-blower and
shareholder in 1987 involving the United States Defense Contractor International Signal & Control,
Plc., known as ISC. In 1992, International Signal & Control was indicted and found guilty of among
other things a Billion Dollar Fraud and export violations concerning illegally shipping cluster bomb
technologies, missile defense systems, and other defense systems to foreign interests including South
Africa, Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Cluster bombs and related technologies are known to have been
exported to Iraq by the Chilean Arms Dealer Carlos Cardoen, a joint venture partner of International
Signal & Control.
The Central Intelligence Agency is confirmed to have been involved in a covert
program to arm Iraq during the 1980s with close ties to International Signal & Control, which
allegedly included the help of the National Security Agency, a former end user of International Signal &
Control technologies under the early 1980s program Project X. A Presidential Finding in 1984 by the
Bush Administration was executed to implement the program of arming Saddam Hussein and Iraq with
the cluster bomb technologies. Serious allegations of these programs were the focus of investigations
that included the knowledge and supervision of then appointed nominee for the Director of Central
Intelligence Agency, Robert M. Gates.
Since 1987, Stanley J. Caterbone has been the victim of vast civil conspiracy that started in
1987 to cover-up allegations of fraud within International Signal & Control during the negotiations and
merger of International Signal & Control and Ferranti International of England. Stanley J. Caterbone
alleges that warrantless surveillance was used to obstruct justice and moot his constitutional rights in
an effort to divert attention away from his allegations of fraud within International Signal & Control
back in 1987, and afterwards to the present as a means to deny his access to the courts for remedy
and relief, and Federal False Claims Act violations. The business of Advanced Media Group has been
greatly compromised and intellectual property stolen during the late 1980s and early 1990s that
included information technology contracts with the United States Government.
In January of 2006, Stanley J. Caterbone was detained at every airport security check point,
which was during a policy of random checks, and taken out of line during travel from Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, to Houston, Texas, and on to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. At the Houston Airport, Stanley J.
Caterbone was falsely accused of carrying plastics explosives and taken to an interview room by
Homeland Security officials. Stanley J. Caterbone was also detained for three days in Mexico, and was
not provided with an opportunity to gain access to a flight out of the country by Mexican Officials.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page33 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
The interest of amicus in this case is ensuring that constitutional rights of private citizens are
not compromised and justice subverted through information obtained from warrantless surveillance
upon which there is no just cause for any allegations or association with terrorism. Whistle-Blowers
are inherently supportive of a system of checks and balances within our government that go beyond
our constitutional doctrines regarding the same.
Whistle-Blowers ensure that the rule of law is
universally applied to all government officials in all branches of government. The Federal False Claims
Act and its provisions protect individuals from abuse of power, while providing relief and remedies for
those that were wronged and those that had the courage to cite a wrong.
It is too easy for present and future administrations to abuse their power and utilize
warrantless surveillance as a means of subverting and obstructing justice for those that are engaged in
Whistle-Blowing cases that concern National Security.
Without the proper oversight and judicial
review, a Whistle Blower can be place on terrorist lists for malicious reasons without the knowledge or
just cause. This is in direct conflict with keeping our democracy free of corruption while adhering to
the spirit of the constitution in the manner our founding fathers envisioned.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page44 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
__________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURIAE
__________________________________________________________________
Background Information: The following transcripts from National Broadcast Television, ABC News
Nightline and ABC News 20/20; provide material information as to the activities of International Signal
& Control and the importance of these matters with regard to National Security.
ABC NEWS 20/20 FEBRUARY 1, 1991
[Lynn Sherr ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] This is the story of how this deadly weapon,
designed for the U.S. military made its way form this country to Iraq. And how American Soldiers may
face the devastation of a cluster bomb if a ground war breaks out in the Persian Gulf. Federal Officials
believe Saddam Hussein got his arsenal thru a lethal combination bureaucratic foul ups in the U.S.
Government and simple greed.
Here is how the cluster bomb works. An artillery shell, an airplane, or a rocket launcher sends the
bombs toward their targets.
Each bomb carries hundreds of smaller bomlets, something like hand
grenades. Cluster bombs can be used against ground troops or tanks, and can even scatter mines to
lie dormant for days. The bombs can spray thousands of pounds of sharp objects pins or even razor
blades. The shrapnel can rip through anyone or anything in its way, causing massive casualty among
civilians or ground troops.
You can see the destruction in these buildings in Lebanon after a cluster
bomb attack.
How did Iraq obtain the cluster bombs and the ability to make their own? It was incredibly simple.
Investigators believe it started with International Signal & Control, A government contractor with
5,000 employees based in Pennsylvania, which build key components of cluster bombs in a subsidiary
in California. 20/20 has learned Federal Investigators believe ISC provided the technology, that is the
plans, to this man, Carlos Cardoen, Chilean arms dealer.
Authorities believe he used the plans to
build the cluster bombs in Chile, then he shipped them to Iraq.

Whats wrong with all this?
If the cluster bomb technology actually left the county, that is illegal
without U.S. Government permission, investigators say ISC never got. It is also illegal for a foreigner,
like Cardoen, to take the plans out of the United States without a license, which sources tell us, he
never obtained. The man who opened the door to Iraq for Cardoen, was this man Nasser Bedouin. He
is a Lebanese born middleman for Cardoen who is based in the United States. Bedouin traveled often
to Bagdad, and arranged for sale cluster bombs and other military hardware to Saddam Husseins
army. In his first television interview, he told us about the business of dealing in deadly weapons.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page55 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
[Nasser Bedouin, Arms Dealer] I can sell you a knife to peel an apple, if you cut someones
throat, thats your business. Weapons do not kill, who behind them kill.
[Lynn Sherr ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] With slick promotional videos, Cardoen marketed
his arms throughout the world. Arab countries were favorite customers.
[Cardoen Marketing Video] Each one of the bomblets of the cluster bomb is multi purpose and
contains an incendiary, anti personnel and anti armor detection.
[Lynn Sherr ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] This letter from Cardoen authorizes Bedouin to
sell cluster bombs to Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran.
This letter says Cardoens company is
willing to take its share in helping Iraq in its time of need. We can provide you with our cluster bombs
at the lowest possible price. According to these contracts the sale of cluster bombs to Iraq was an
extremely lucrative business. February 24, 2984 3,000 cluster bombs sent to Saddam Husseins army
worth $21 million dollars.
dollars.
A few months later, another 3,000 cluster bombs, another $21 million
The supply of cluster bombs eventually totaled more than $400 million dollars.
In fact,
Bedouin is suing his former boss for commission payments.

According to Bedouin, Cardoen not only sold the bombs produce in Chile to Saddam Hussein, he
actually set up a factory near Bagdad.
bombs.
So the Iraq President could mass-produce his own cluster
That was one of the first attacks by the military when the attack began.
Its unknown
whether that plant is totally out of commission.

[Nasser Bedouin, Arms Dealer] He set up a factory to manufacture the cluster bomb. Um, ah
later stage for the fuses. And this is a complete project. I mean its completer from raw material to
finished product. Because the purpose in Iraq is to have control over the weaponry they have put in
their strategy.
[Lynn Sherr ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] Federal Investigators are now trying to bring
Carlos Cardoen to justice.
But why didnt they find out about him sooner? He has been selling cluster
bombs to Iraq for nearly a decade. The U.S. Patent Office knew about Cardoen back in 1986. But
they didnt tell anyone else in the Federal Government about them. In a move that went apparently
unchecked in the highest levels of the government, Cardoen applied for his own patent for cluster
bombs in 1986. Based on some changes on previous designs, he received the patent two years later.
Getting the Patent is not illegal. But at a time when U.S. shipments of arms to Chile were banned, as
to all sales to Iraq, Why didnt the Patent Office raise any questions why was this foreigner dealing in
U.S. arms?
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page66 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Experts say bureaucratic infighting regularly causes such lapses.
The Departments of Commerce,
State, and Defense, are supposed to control arms sales, and communicate with one another.
[Anthony Cordazman, Correspondent] - Even today, the same squabbling goes on, every day
within the Commerce, State, and Defense. The Administration can never agree on what
kinds of laws
can be passed to correct this.

[Lynn Sherr ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] Carlos Cardoen denied our requests to speak on
camera. In an interview last year, he denied he did anything wrong.
[Carlos Cardoen, Chilean Arms Dealer] - And as long as a human being is an animal that needs to
defend himself, weapons are going to exist. I think that is wrong.
As a human being I believe that
weapons are wrong. But they are a fact. And we have to live with facts.
The former head of ISC, James Guerin, who dealt with Chilean, said he did not provide anything to Cardoen to build
weapons. But Nasser Bedouin tells a different story.
[Nasser Bedouin, Arms Dealer] I believe that Dr. Carlos Cardoen got the plans to build the
cluster bombs from the United States.
[Lynn Sherr ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] Questions about the cluster bombs come at a
time when questions are being focused on how so many American designed weapons got into the
hands of Saddam Hussein. Senator John McCain.
[Senator John McCain] Theres not just one Saddam Hussein on this globe. Theres lots and lots
of them who at this time as we speak are acquiring technologies to give them the capabilities of
weapons of mass destruction because its a way of gaining victory on the cheap.
[Lynn Sherr ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] McCain has introduced legislation that would
severely penalize and company or countries that would sell weapons illegally or harbor arms dealers.
[Senator John McCain] To provide many of the kinds of weapons that we have today to many
nations, which are clearly offensive in nature, and are clearly far exceed their requirements to defend
themselves, is frankly unconscionable and must be brought to a stop.
[Lynn Sherr, ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] Basically what you are saying is hit them in the
pocketbook.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page77 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
[Senator John McCain] Hit them in the pocketbook and public exposure. No corporation or nation
likes to be branded as a nation that is involved in this illicit trafficking.
[Lynn Sherr ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] But public exposure and pressure will not shield
American Soldiers. If Saddam Hussein uses the cluster bombs he already has.
[Senator John McCain] And if there is one good thing that has come out of this Persian Gulf war
its to dramatically heighten the awareness of the people of the world to the American people of how
dangerous this proliferation of weapons of mass destruction can be.
[Hugh Downs, ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] God those things are vicious. Have there been
any indictments yet Lynn?
[Lynn Sherr ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] Ah, no Hugh, no indictments yet.
Carlos
Cardoen has not been indicted, even though Federal Agents raided his headquarters office in Miami.
And U.S. Customs people took a number of documents, but no indictments yet, but there are
investigations going on.
[Hugh Downs, ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] If these things are dropped from airplanes,
and we have air supremacy, as it now has been said by our leaders, is there that much to worry about
for our troops?
[Lynn Sherr ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] Were told yes, because you dont need to an
airplane to a cluster bomb, they can also be used on rocket launchers and on unguided missiles, both
of which Iraq has. And incidentally, we talked about that bomb factory, even if it was badly damaged,
the cluster bomb factory he already has, were told in three to six months it can be operational again,
and anyway he likely has a big stockpile.
[Hugh Downs, ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] We of course, have these weapons also, and I
understand they are called something different?
[Lynn Sherr ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] Yes, if youre listening to a Pentagon Briefing,
dont listen for the term cluster bomb, there calling them Aerial Denial Weapons.
[Hugh Downs, ABC News 20/20 Correspondent] Thank you Lynn.
END
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page88 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
ABC News Nightline - September 12, 1991

[Ted Koppel] incidentally the function of the senior review panel is to advise one man, the director
of central intelligence. And at least part of the period in question there was an acting director of the
CIA Robert Gates. Well attempt to pull some of these threads together when we come back.
Commercial Break
[Ted Koppel] When all is said and done, why should your or your representatives in Congress care,
eventually after all President Bush spoke and acted against Sadaam Hussein more forcefully than
anyone could have expected.
[Former President George H. Bush Speech] Were dealing with Hitler revisited, a totalitarianism,
a brutality, that is neglect and unprecedented in modern times.
[Vidoe-Gary Milhollin, Director, The Wisconsin Project] The more we gave Sadaam, the more
dangerous he got. And ultimately we had to go to war to destroy what we sold him.
[Ted Koppel] But its not a question of holding the Bush or Reagan Administrations to account for
having made mistakes with regards to their policies toward Iraq The issue is how those policies were
implemented.
As we reported over the past few months, The Atlanta Branch of an Italian Bank, BNL, was able to
funnel $Billions, some of it in U.S. Credits to Iraqs Military Procurement
Network.
The U.S.
Government knew, and turned a blind eye. Sophisticated Military Technology was illegally transferred
from a major U.S. company in Lancaster, Pennsylvania (International Signal & Control),
to South
Africa, and Chile, and from there onto Iraq. The Iraqi borne designer of a chemicals weapons plant in
Lybia, set up shop in Florida, producing and shipping to Iraq chemical weapon components. The CIA,
FBI, and other U.S. agencies were made aware of the operation and did nothing to prevent it.
During the 1980s and into the 90s senior officials of both the Bush and Reagan Administration
encouraged the privatization of foreign policy, certainly towards Iran and Iraq. The policy may have
had merit - but there werent willing or in some instances werent successful in fighting it out in Capital
Hill so they found other ways. They made a mockery of the Export Control System, and they found
ways of encouraging foreign governments to do what our laws prohibited. They even knew or if not
were guilty of the grossest incompetence that U. S. companies were collaborating with foreign Arms
merchants in the illegal transfer of American Technology that helped Sadaam Hussein build is
formidable arsenal.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page99 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
This week, the CIA again told ABC News Nightline that our allegations over the past few months
regarding covert operations to supply Iraq with U.S. Arms and weapons technologies simply were not
true.
The CIAs Inspector General said a statement from the Agency [On Screen] - Has found to factual
support whatsoever for such an operation or for the involvement of Mr. Gates.
[Ted Koppel] At least one member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bill Bradley of New
Jersey, feels that there may be reason to doubt both those claims, and hell raise the issues next week
during the Gates Confirmation Hearings, next week.
The CIA also told us that its Inspector General has found no evidence of any off-the-books illegal
activity.
But the CIA concedes, off-the-books activities, are not documented.
Precisely so that
deniability can be preserved.

One thing is undeniable, this gun sight video of a stealth fighter bomber from the 32nd Tactical Fighter
Wing, last February attacking a bomb factory, on the outskirts of Bagdad U.S. Technology in the air,
destroying U.S. Technology on the Ground. The factory was built by Carlos Cardoen.
For all of us here at ABC News, Good night.
END
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page10
10 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
ABC News Nightline - July 1991

[Ted Koppel] Carlos Cardoens role in shipping arms to Iraq has been known for years.
His
connection with Robert Gates has not. By the mid 1980s Cardoen was the largest private supplier of
weapons to Iraq.
In all he has believed to ship a half billion dollars worth of arms and advanced
technologies to Bagdad.
At a factory 500 miles north of Santiago, Cardoen produced tens of
thousands of bombs and other equipment, absolutely essentially to Iraq during its eight year war with
Iran.
The material would be loaded aboard regular Iraqi airway flights flown from Santiago to Bagdad.
Cardoen did not simply ship weapons, he set up entire factories capable of producing bombs and other
explosives the components would be shipped from all over the world and then assembled in Iraq. One
of those factories turned out Cluster Bombs.
As we first reported on the 24th of May, much of the sophisticated military technology that Cardoen
was shipping to Iraq came from the United States. This company in sleepy Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is
believed to be the source for some of the Cluster Bomb technology. But there was more.
Nasser
Bedouin is also an arms dealer. He acted as a middleman between Carlos Cardoen and Iraq.
[Nasser Bedouin on Video] I am aware of Carlos Cardoen getting some type of technology from
the air fuel bomb from the United States. I believe Iraq has a viable fuel air explosive.
[Ted Koppel] These explosives are designed to explode just above ground level like miniature
atomic bombs, literally sucking all available oxygen out of the air. It is clear that Carlos Cardoens
special relationship with the United States was not known by all Departments. When the Commerce
Department inquired about that relationship in early 1987, it received a cable from the U.S.
Ambassador to Chile saying although Cardoen is involved with the sale of armaments, and he has
made his fortune from it, he is considered to be a responsible recipient of U.S. products. In fact by
1987, the covert relationship between the CIA and Cardoen was already well established.
In 1983 the Reagan Administration had become alarmed at how poorly the Iraqi military was doing
against Iran. A decision was made at the highest level of Government to begin helping Iraq.
Indeed ABC News has learned only today, that around that time, in 1983 Ronald Reagan issued a
highly classified Presidential Finding stating that it was important to the National Interests that arms
and technical assistance be covertly funneled to Iraq
and with the help of the CIA.
More on the
significance of that Presidential Finding in a moment.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page11
11 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
What it unleashed was a flood of US help to Iraq. A former CIA operative who was involved in the
program has told us of a series of covert operations, in which loads of 727s were flown into Iraq. On
one such mission in 1987 our source tells us he accompanied a planeload of Soviet built one hundred
twenty-two missiles.
The Soviet equipment was shipped because it would be compatible with what
the Iraqis already had. By 1987, there was at least one such flight a week into Bagdad.
Our former CIA source recalls bringing in $100 dollar bills in a bowling bag, they would also carry
whiskey, cartons of cigarettes and copies of Penthouse magazines to speed up the unloading process,
which usually took place at night.
Once the White House has authorized the Covert Assistance
Program to Iraq, the CIA took over. In effect the former CIA operative told us the covert operation
amounted to here is what we want you to do, and we really dont want to know too much about how
you do it.
Our source tells us that he has at least one meeting in 1986 in Florida between Robert Gates and
Carlos Cardoen, the Chilean Arms Dealer. Other sources have told us of other such meetings. Here in
the United States and in Europe. Which brings us to an unsolicited statement that was telephoned in
to Nightline from the Central Intelligence Agency almost a month ago on June 17th. Allegations, the
statement read that Robert Gates facilitated illegal shipments to Iraq during the 1980s are totally
without basis. Since we had never requested a statement of Mr. Gates, we didnt know quite what to
make of it at the time. But then today we learned of that Presidential Finding, authorizing the Covert
shipment of arms to Iraq.
It would be true then that Robert Gates did not facilitate illegal shipments to Iraq, under the
Presidential Finding, the shipments would have been quite legal.
But during this last set of
confirmation hearings, back in 1987, Robert Gates assured the Senate Confirmation Committee that he
would always keep the Committee current on ongoing covert operations. Indeed the CIA is supposed
to provide the Intelligence Committee with quarterly reports. According to well-informed sources on
the Committee it has had no briefings on the Covert arms pipeline to Iraq.
That, said one Senator on
the Committee would be a total breach of trust. What would it do to the Gates Nomination? I asked.
It would probably be enough said the Senator, to derail the Nomination.
Again, an excerpt from Mr. Gates Testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1987:
[Robert Gates 1987 on video] If you cannot have a system in which you can have some
confidence between A the branches of government, and confidence between the senior officials of the
Government, A that they abide by the rules, and B that they will deal with one another honestly, then
I think the system begins to collapse.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page12
12 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
[Ted Koppel] Late this evening, the Whitehouse communicated its response to the charges
contained in this report, the Whole story is unfounded. There were never any sales; covert or overt
to Iraq or Iran through a third country. And Mr. Gates never met with Carlos Cardoen.
Well be back with more, in a moment.
[Ted Koppel] For the viewers, this is Alan Freidman, New York Correspondent for the Financial
Times of London, and a member of the team investigating Robert Gates. Alan Id like to begin by
repeating a statement, and let me put my specs on for a moment, the White House. This story is
unfounded and there were never any sales covert or overt to Iraq or Iran through a third country. And
Mr. Gates never met with Carlos Cardoen.
Ah, ah a fairly carefully drafted statement one would think.
[Alan Friedman, New York Correspondent for the Financial Times of London] Yes Ted, I
think that is right, I would agree with the statement that there were never any sales Iraq through a
third party.
Indeed what we found was that some of the cluster bomb technology and fuel air
technology was given smuggled down to Chile, for use that were used and made and shipped on
through to Iraq.
In terms of the um statement by the White House that there were never any
meetings between Mr. Gates and Mr. Cardoen, we have a number of sources, some of them personally
involved in these operations, one of them who was personally and physically an eye witness present at
a meeting, in Florida, with Mr. Gates and Mr. Cardoen in 1986. And who was told my Mr. Gates, about
other meetings that he had with Mr. Cardoen.
[Ted Koppel] Now Congressman Gejdenson, I realized that we sort of unleashed an awful lot of
material on you today, but to what degree does this fit in with those thousands of documents that you
subpoenaed with the information that you have?
[House Representative Sam Gejdenson of the House Foreign Affairs Committee] Well we
just got the documents after a several month battle with the Administration to pry them loose and it
took the vote of a subpoena by the subcommittee to start the flow of those documents, but its
certainly consistent with the information that we got with Committee staffs with some of those people
that said they were at those meetings, ah as well. I think that the important thing to remember here
is that the United States in 1982 under the Reagan Administration took Iraq off the terrorist list at a
time when some of the worst terrorist of the world were being harbored by Saddam Hussein, and we
suddenly changed our policy and continued to keep Iraq off the terrorist list, enabling the export of
dual use, ah items that can be used for dual use from the United States to Iraq, as well as these sales
that went indirectly to Iraq.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page13
13 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
So, all through a time when they were harboring terrorists, and they killed 5,000 Kurds in 1988, and
as recent as six days before the invasion of Kuwait, when I and several members of Congress, tried to
stop the subsidy of grain sales to Iraq, the Bush Administration continued to impose any sanctions
against Iraq.
[Ted Koppel] Well of course theres a huge difference between grain sales and the shipment of
entire plants for the building of a cluster bomb factory.
[House Representative Sam Gejdenson of the House Foreign Affairs Committee] Except for
what I think you find is that a pattern by both the Bush and Reagan Administrations to trying to assist
Saddam Hussein. What we found at one Hearing was a document from the State Department, ah that
said that the United States was ready to sell weapons to Iraq as long as they were for the personal
protection of Saddam Hussein. A policy that ignored all the outrages, a policy that ignored I think the
intent of the Congress and the American People. And that the allegations that weve gotten from a
number of sources seem to be consistent with that. The United States did everything it could under
the Reagan and Bush Administrations to assist Saddam Hussein.
[Ted Koppel] Alan, I know that one of the things that we discovered in our investigations was and
Id like you to elaborate on it a little bit was that frequently there was Federal Agencies, Law
Enforcement Agencies that was trying to uncover what was going on we found that they were stymied
at every turn. Can you talk about a that a little bit?.
[Alan Friedman, New York Correspondent for the Financial Times of London] Yes I think
that if we look back at other discoveries that we made, you can say that when we found ISC, the
company in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, that was, that had cluster bomb technology, shipped down to
Chile that was part of this covert operation for Iraq, we found that the CIA had detailed knowledge
over a period of 4 years of all sorts of shipments from ISC to South Africa, some of which were later
trans shipped to Iraq, we found that Federal Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies were unable to do
anything about it because they just werent told. Likewise, we were just told of the case that the man
that built the Rapta Chemical Weapons plant in Libya, who ah, even though the CIA were tracking him
very carefully here in the United States, was allowed to build a chemical weapons plant here in Florida,
and shipped dangerous cyanide with the help of CIA Contract Shippers to Iraq.
All of these things
were going on and the investigators seem unable to do anything about any of these things. We seem
to have part of the Government trying to investigate, and part of the Government trying to ship.
[Ted Koppel] Congressman Gejdenson Id like to get your reaction to that and see if your
experiences have been similar in some of the findings that ah or some of the conclusions that you
have reached, but well take a break first and be back in just a moment.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page14
14 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
[House Representative Sam Gejdenson of the House Foreign Affairs Committee] Well we
saw it ah from across all of the agencies. We had Dennis Kloskey who was then in charge of export
licensing at Commerce testify before our committee in April that he suggested to Mr. Gates and others
that ah meetings at White House to stop the export of dangerous technologies to Iraq. The following
day ah Mr. Kloskey resigned from the Government.
We were told by Mr. Kloskey that the White
House, the people in that room representing the President argued for a policy that assisted Saddam
Hussein in getting dual use technologies. We had Congressman Rose who I know has been on your
show testifying about the grain sales being tied up with funding weapons to Iraq as well. So across
the government, this thing went on. Its hard to believe that somebody like Mr. Gates in his position
didnt know about it.
[Ted Koppel] We are suggesting a lot more that he knew about it. Were suggesting that he was
actively involved in it let me just pass on a little information that we have gathered today, having to
do with the Confirmation Hearings and was told earlier this afternoon. Alan Fryers, Senior Officer with
the CIA and Clair George are not likely to be testifying voluntarily, indeed Alan Fryers said he will not
be testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The White House, as we have all heard
throughout the day is putting on some pressure to get those Hearings underway before the August
recess, August 2nd, of course, the Senate goes into recess. Ah, and there are indications now that a
week from Monday, indeed the Hearings will begin, Mr. Gates will be asked to testify at that time, but
Ive been also told that there is no way that the Hearing will no way be completed before the August
recess.
And that Mr. Gates will be told that he will be recalled again
after other witnesses have
testified, after the August recess. So these Hearing now, are destined to go into September.
[House Representative Sam Gejdenson of the House Foreign Affairs Committee] I think that
is terribly important, because we have to what we have to remember here, unlike other appointees of
the President, what the head of the CIA does is not transparent. If youre the Secretary of Housing,
like Jack Kemp is, and I disagree with one of his programs, not only do I know about it, but the
average citizen knows about what Jack Kemps doing. Sometimes you agree with it and sometimes
you disagree with him. In the case of the Director of the CIA, as is clear from repeated experiences,
often times even the people in Congress were suppose to know about these activities are not
informed. This has to do with National Security the standard ought not be somebody that can get by
the Hearing process with White House pressure. The White House ought to be with us on this one, we
ought to make sure that we have someone fully discloses what is going on to the appropriate
committees and to Congress. Not someone involved in Iran Contra and not someone who hasnt told
the entire truth. And not someone who is in question about these activities. This has to be a definitive
decision by the Congress, that this individual will come clean with the Congress and fulfill not just the
letter of the law, but the spirit of the law.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page15
15 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
[Ted Koppel] Alright, let me just interrupt here for a moment, because were down to our last
minute and a half or so, Alan, it is inevitable in this kind of investigation that you run into a lot of
sleazy characters and I just want to get from you for our audience some sense of how much of the
information that we have compiled here comes from the sleazy characters and how much comes from
the few that we can really rely upon?
[Alan Friedman, New York Correspondent for the Financial Times of London] I think, ah Ted
the important thing to remember here is that we have had all kinds of allegations for the last three
months when our team has interviewed dozens of people, weve been acidulously cross checking and
weve waited to go ahead with this story until weve had very credible witnesses. Those who were
documented CIA operatives and those who were physically with Mr. Gates during those meetings, and
we asked some of them why would Mr. Gates take the risk and go out and meet with Mr. Cardoen and
get directly involved and get his hands dirty in these operations, especially as he was deputy director
of the CIA at the time himself.
We were told that he went out because he wanted to give his
improvtoire in order to make sure the job got done. Weve talked to a number of top people and cross
checked.
[Ted Koppel] Alright, Alan Friedman thank you very much, Congressman Gejdenson, thank you
very much, Ill be back in a moment.
END
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page16
16 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Whistle-Blowing Activities Starting in June of 1987, local, state, and federal authorities were
called by Stanley J. Caterbone, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Securities
and Exchange Commission, Congressman Robert Walker, the Pennsylvania Attorney General, the
Lancaster District Attorney, Manheim Township Police, and a host of others.
The following is a memo of a meeting with ISC executive Mr. Lawrence Resch and Mr. Stanley J.
Caterbone at his office at Financial Management Group, Ltd., which took place on June 23, 1987. Mr.
Lawrence Resch, of San Clamente, California, was a long time associate of Mr. James Guerin who
worked as a marketing consultant, and was an ISC executive prior to the company going public in
1982. He served as Director of Marketing and head of Lancaster operations for then defunct United
Chem Con, an affiliate of ISC. He was sued by Ferranti International in 1990 for $189 million dollars
and indicted and found guilty by prosecutors for his role with ISC and served a jail term.
Upon the arrival of Mr. Larry Resch, Stan Caterbone met him in the lobby of Financial Management
Group, Ltd, at which time Larry Resch said "Carl Jacobson could not attend, we had to suddenly fly him
out of the country early this morning (flew to Chile) The meeting was started with the subject of the
financial difficulties of United Chem Con and possible alternatives. Larry Resch specifically addressed
the possibility of moving the operations of United Chem Con to another facility, with specific regards to
the Renovo Plant. Larry Resch specifically addressed the financing capabilities of Stan Caterbone,
along with possible management opportunities. Larry Resch also gave financial statements and
documents to Stan Caterbone for the latest fiscal year for United Chem Con. Stan Caterbone went on
to allege that United Chem Con had embezzled some $15,000,000 from the United States
Government for contracts that contained improprieties. Stan Caterbone also alleged improprieties of
International Signal & Control and James Guerin, with specific regards to its role in the United Chem
Con, and its business activities as related to government contracts. Stan Caterbone noted that he, as a
legal shareholder of International Signal & Control was concerned about improper business activities.
Larry Resch was taken by surprise by all of the above. Stan Caterbone became quite upset by the
evasiveness and the lack of specifics with regards to Larry Resch's conversation. In efforts to thwart
any further communication from James Guerin, United Chem Con, or International Signal & Control,
Stan Caterbone demanded a retainer fee of $10,000 before anyone contacted him again.
The following is a transcript of a meeting with Agent Howard Eisler, of the Pennsylvania Securities
Commission on September 29, 1987. The meeting was solicited at the bequest of Agent Howard Eisler
supposedly for an investigation into securities violations at Financial Management Group, Ltd.,
However, that also turned out to be untrue, or Agent Eisler also ignored all of the violations that
occurred at the company headquarters.
The meeting lasted approximately 4 hours at the residence of
Stanley J. Caterbone. Also present were attorney Mr. Robert Byers, and client of Stanley J. Caterbone,
Mr. Millard Johnson. Agent Howard Eisler, in November of 1987, requested that Stanley J. Caterbone
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page17
17 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
put any complaints or grievances in writing and never did anything with information or testimony from
the meeting.
[Stanley J.
Caterbone, ISC Shareholder; Founder Executive Vice President of Financial
Management Group, Ltd., and President of FMG Advisory, Ltd.,] - Chem Con is the big local
minority-held corporation that was doing a lot of Defense contracts-it was associated with ISC. They
went under last spring, beginning of the summer, and there was a lot of criminal allegations made,
none of them substantiated. And I was connected with that. They sent a board member in to see me a
week before this happened. Why. I don't know. Jim Christian owned it - now I hear rumors that I was
tied to ISC and I am close to several people in that organization. Why they sent someone in to
California to see me, I don't know. They wouldnt answer me. They wanted me to talk to a guy from
D.C., New York, a guy from the Caribbean. I don't know what the hell is going on.
[Mr. Robert Byer, Criminal Attorney for Stanley J. Caterbone] the supposition was - I don't
know how true it was a front for ISC.
[Stanley J.
Management Group, Ltd., and President of FMG Advisory, Ltd.,] - It was, I'll tell you why.
Because when Chem Con was started, back to their inception, you look at ISC's books. They didn't
have any money. Well, the fist thing Chem Con did was they went and got all that free money from
the government and you look where that money went. I bet I know where it went. This guy named
Guerin, James Guerin. And I know that they were selling contracts back. He runs ISC and he also has
his fingers pretty deeply into Chem Con. He's the one who started Chem Con, Guerin is the one who
started it.
[Mr. Millard (Bill) Johnson, Client of Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone] - Wasn't there some allegations
about a tie to Wedtech? (Defense Contractor of New York)
[Stanley J.
Management Group, Ltd., and President of FMG Advisory, Ltd.,] - You bet. They were tied, you'd
better believe they were tied with Wedtech. The same guys in Wedtech were invoked with ISC and
Chem Con.
ISC is sold over the London Exchange. (I bought my shares from Pennsylvania State
Senator Gibson Armstrong) I owned a thousand shares. I sold it when things started to hit the fanthey just did a multimillion dollar merger with a company in London. They probably think this is going
to cover their tracks. What they did was, they fronted all that money and started the contracts, went
bankrupt, and now the government is stuck for $18,000,000.
I know right now in this town's
viewpoint, I stole money, I am insane, and I am a lunatic I tell you I will not condemn Jim Christian
until he tells to my face what happened. "I was framed and set up. I dont know maybe Jim Christian
doesn't have the money. Maybe Guerin has it or somebody else has it.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page18
18 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
__________________________________________________________________
ARGUMENT
__________________________________________________________________
Keith, 407 U.S. at 313-14. There, the Court explained that
[n]ational security cases . . . often reflect a convergence of First and Fourth Amendment values . . . .
Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance
may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute
where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect domestic
security.
Id. The Court thus concluded that Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if
domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch.
The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and
disinterested magistrates. . . . The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that
unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence
and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech. . . . [T]his Court has never sustained
a search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to find evidence . . . and voluntarily
confined their activities to the least intrusive means . . . . The Fourth Amendment contemplates a prior
judicial judgment, not the risk that executive discretion may be reasonably exercised.
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
Page
107
Page19
19 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 21, 2007, I have mailed by U.S. Postal Service, by electronic means, or by
facsimile the foregoing paper to the following (funds permitted) :
ANN BEESON
Attorney of Record
JAMEEL JAFFER
MELISSA GOODMAN (admission pending)
CATHERINE CRUMP (admission pending)
National Legal Department
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2400
(212) 549-2500
MICHAEL J. STEINBERG
KARY L. MOSS
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan
60 West Hancock Street
Detroit, MI 48201-1343
(313) 578-6814
Kate Martin
CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES
60 1 Thirteenth Street, N. W.
1120 19th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 72 1-5650
Joseph Onek Erin N. Linder
Sharon Bradford Franklin
THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT
1025 Vermont Avenue,
(202) 580-6920
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
S. 800 Suite 1200 South
(202) 639-6095
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
330 N. Wabash Avenue
N. W. Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 222-9350
Randy Gainer
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1501 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2600
Seattle, WA 98101 - 1688
Lucy A. Dalglish, Esq.

Counsel of Record
Gregg P. Leslie, Esq.
Elizabeth J. Soja, Esq.
1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209-2211
(703) 807-2100
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae The Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press
Kathleen M. Sullivan
Derek L. Shaffer
Constitutional Law Center
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, California 94305-8610
ANN BEESON
Attorney of Record
JAMEEL JAFFER
MELISSA GOODMAN (admission pending)
SCOTT MICHELMAN (admission pending)
CATHERINE CRUMP (admission pending)
National Legal Department
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2400
(212) 549-2500
annb@aclu.org
David W. DeBruin
Theresa A. Chmara
Julie M. Carpenter
Michael B. DeSanctis
Wade B. Gentz
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
601 Thirteenth St., N.W., 12th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
tel. (202) 639-6000
fax (202) 639-6066
Margaret A. Costello
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
400 Renaissance Center
Detroit, MI 48243
tel. (313) 568-5306
fax (313) 568-6893
Douglas N. Letter
Thomas N. Bondy
Anthony A. Yang
Attorneys, Appellate Staff
Civil Division, Room 7513
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Date: February 20, 2007
Stan J. Caterbone
and
U.S. Attorneys
Advanced Media
Group
____________/s/________________
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-427-1821 facsimile
Page
107
Page20
20 of
of 20
Wednesday August
02/21/200731, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
BAUSMAN MPO
Product
Descri p t i on
THANK YOU FOR SHOPPN

IG
WEIS MARKETS #41
CLUB CUSTOMER
Ite.
MC
r*rr
LANCASTER,p~
40041389011
Rice
1.49 F
1.49 F
1.OD-F
1.00-F
.OO BAL
.98
H8 VIENNA 60
HB VIENNA 80
COUPON 11009
MANUFACTURERCPN
TAX
Cash
CwGE
1.00
cowon savines. . .. . .. ... .. ..... .oZ
2.00
YOU- Total Savings are 6 7 . 1 1 ~ 2.00
2/20/07
.*r.
I,~>?~.?C;E
LaTIOh
TAX
Cash
E%S
06 B ~ L
Final
Price
LANCASTER PA 17604
First-Cless
1.50 oz.
PA
It$
Sales Receipt
Sale Unit
Qty Price
D
, .r i.ce
1.2, F
1.00 T
Issue PVI :
PHILADELPHIA PA 19101
First-Cl ass
1.30 oz.
2.27
2.27
.00
. Issue PVI:
2/18
DETROIT M I 48201
Fi rst-Cl ass
4.90 oz.
4:14 PM 0041201 0129 225
x
St
Issue PVI :
Total :
Paid by:
Cash
Change Due:
Bi l I # : 1000200788239
Clerk: 03
A l l sales f i n a l on stamps and postage.

Refunds for guaranteed services on1 y.
Thank you f o r your business.
Stan J. Caterbone and U.S. Attorneys
Page 21 of 107
Wednesday August 31, 2016
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Page 22 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
mailto:amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stanley J. Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
March 19, 2007
United States District Court

Eastern District Of Michigan Southern Division
The Clerk of The Court
Detroit, MI
Re:
Brief On Behalf Of Amici Curiae Stanley J. Caterbone And Advanced Media Group
In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Partial Summary Judgment
Dear Clerk of the Court:
Please see the attached for filing. On February 22, 2007, I did not have your address so I
forwarded the filing to the ACLU Office in Detroit with a note to please forward it to you for filing. I
have no way of confirming, so I am submitting another copy for you to file.
I thank you for your service in advance. If you require any additional information, please
contact me by email at the above address.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Pro Se Lititgant
Page 23 of 107
Lancaster New Era: Dems' inaction on FISA harmful
http://eedition.lancasteronline.com/pages/news/edition/NEPM/2008...
One
One
ofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Lancaster New Era

Dems' inaction on FISA harmful
It's things like this that make us wonder how serious some
Democrats are about confronting the terrorist threat on America.
The Democratic-led House let a crucial government-eavesdropping
law expire over the weekend before Congress began a 12-day
recess.
The eavesdropping won't end; it just makes the task that much
harder for our intelligence officials.
The House failed to adopt the bipartisan Senate version of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which would have renewed an
update of the law approved in August that makes it easier for the
government to spy on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass
through the United States.
FISA, first adopted by Congress during the Cold War, would let the
government initiate wiretaps for up to one year. It also would
compel telecommunications to comply with wiretap orders while
shielding them from civil lawsuits that may be filed against them as
a result.
The provisions in the law have one purpose and one purpose only:
to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks.
"American citizens must understand, clearly understand that there's
still a threat on the homeland...," says President Bush. "We've got to
give our professionals the tools they need to be able to figure out
what the enemy is up to so we can stop it."
Some Democrats apparently don't see it that way. They downplay
FISA's expiration and accuse the president of fear-mongering and
misrepresenting the facts.
"This is not about protecting Americans. The president just wants to
protect American telephone companies," argues Rep. Rahm Emanuel
(D-Illinois), referring to the liability-protection provision that
insulates telecoms from lawsuits.
While the eavesdropping can continue, the compliance requirement
and liability protection for telecoms no longer apply. That means
telecoms' cooperation must be voluntary. And without the liability
protection, they're less likely to be so.
As a result, the government has to go back to the old way of getting
orders approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- a
cumbersome process that ties intelligence agents up in red tape and
causes needless delay.
To get a court order, the government has to prove "probable cause"
before being allowed to tap a line inside the U.S. -- even if the
communication originates and ends in a foreign country. This is
difficult to do, and it takes time.
Indeed, by the time the government complies with the law, the
phone numbers or e-mails that it wanted to track could be obsolete.
"More than likely we would miss the very information we need to
prevent some horrendous act from taking place in the United States,"
says Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence.

1 of 2
Page 24 of 107

2/19/2008 4:21 PM
Lancaster New Era: Dems' inaction on FISA harmful
http://eedition.lancasteronline.com/pages/news/edition/NEPM/2008...
One
One
ofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
The law does makes provisions for emergencies, but the paperwork
still must be completed within a few days.
Democrats who let the FISA law expire insist America is no less safe
from another terrorist attack. But can they be so sure?
The only thing certain is that Americans are not now getting the full
benefit of FISA protection. This is unacceptable.
We should be protecting the American people, not the terrorists.
The eavesdropping won't end; it just makes the task that much
harder for our intelligence officials.
2004-2007 Lancaster Newspapers
PO Box 1328, Lancaster PA 17608, (717) 291-8811

Terms of Service Privacy Policy

2 of 2
Page 25 of 107

2/19/2008 4:21 PM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
amgroup01@msn.com
Printed: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:36 PM
From :
Stan Caterbone <amgroup01@msn.com>
Sent :
Friday, April 20, 2007 1:35 PM
To :
Lisa_Owings@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
CC :
Richard.Manieri@usdoj.gov
Subject :
RE: US Attorney Patrick Meehan
Lisa,
I watched the Senate Judicial Hearings regarding Attorney General Gonzalas yesterday and
heard Senator Schumer field a question from the press about our US Attorney Patrick
Meehan of the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, Senator Schumer said "he was on the
list to be fired and then taken off of the list, and we are looking into that".
In 2005, I had a Department of Justice Trustee, Dave P. Adams, of the Philadelphia Office,
commit misconduct regarding my Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case. Fortunatley, I won an appeal
in the US District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to right that wrong.
Given the corruption and obstruction of justice with my Federal False Claims Act civil action
and all of my other court related matters, I think someone is hiding something.
A few weeks ago, the Honorable Mary McLaughlin, the Federal Judge in the Eastern Court
signed an ORDER for me to resubmit a motion because it was missing in the Philadelphia
Federal Court House. I have similar problems with my civil actions in the Lancaster County
Court of Common Pleas.
Why is everyone above the law and I am beneath it when it comes to my Constitutional and
Civil Rights as to my Right of Due Process and Access to the Courts?
Something is amiss here. Especially since Patrick Meehan was counsel for Senator Specter
some years ago.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group Stan Caterbone mailto: amgroup01@msn.com www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Fax: (717)
427-1621 Advanced Media Group 220 Stone Hill Road Conestoga, PA 17516
Page 26 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
From: "Owings, Lisa (Judiciary-Rep)" <Lisa_Owings@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>

To: "Stan Caterbone" <amgroup01@msn.com>
Subject: RE: Attorney General Gonzales
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:31:40 -0400
Mr. Caterbone,
Thank you for the information. We will examine these files and get back to you if we have any questions.
Regards,
Lisa
Lisa Owings
Counsel
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Arlen Specter
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
(202) 224-5225
lisa_owings@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
From: Stan Caterbone [mailto:amgroup01@msn.com]

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:59 PM
To: Owings, Lisa (Judiciary-Rep)
Subject: Attorney General Gonzales
I know that you are very busy with the AG investigations, however, I am a constituant that has
been the subjuct of the same corruption that you are investigating. Remember, we are talking
about a legitimate Federal False Claims Act complaint concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction
to Iraq. Obstruction of Justice is preventing me from continuing my litigation with Due Process
Page 27 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
and Access to the Court without intimidation and Anti-Slapp violations.

I would appreciate your help.
Stan Caterbone
mailto: amgroup01@msn.com
Fax: (717) 427-1621
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Page 28 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
The Civil Division consists of 25 attorneys. They represent the United States in civil actions,
both defensive and affirmative. The affirmative litigation work includes fraud on the
government, such as health care fraud, and environmental enforcement. Because the Eastern
District has a large number of federal facilities, the office has a defense practice that includes
all varieties of personal injury, including medical malpractice, Title VII litigation and defense
government agency action. Attorneys in the Civil Division do both affirmative and defensive
litigation.
Please go to the following links to learn more about our Civil Division: Affirmative Civil
Enforcement, Predatory Lending, Whistleblower suits, Elder Abuse.
The Organized Crime Division
The responsibility in the U.S. Attorney's Office for dealing with both traditional and certain no
traditional organized criminal groups is assigned to the Organized Crime Strike Force Division
("Strike Force"). Consistent with the Department of Justice's National policy on organized
crime, the Strike Force has the responsibility in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinating federal invetigations and prosecutions in cases related to, and involving, the
following criminal organizations: 1) La Cosa Nostra; 2) Eastern European/Russian organized
crime groups; 3) Asian organized crime groups; and 4) criminal organizations orginating in
Italy, including the Sicilian Mafia, the Camorra, and the N'drangheta. The Strike Force also
handles "special circumstance" investigations that are assigned to it by the U.S. Attorney wit
the concurrence of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. Included within the
Strike Force's assignment are the coordination and development of cases involving human
trafficking (the human trafficking assignment potentially cuts across both Asian and Eurasian
organized crime) and investigations of outlaw motorcycle gangs.
The Strike Force consists of 12 attorneys headed by a Chief and Assistant Chief. The staffin
is augmented occasionally by Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys from local, state and federal
agencies who work under the umbrella of the Organized Crime Division. The use of "special
attorneys" underscores the advantage of cooperative law enforcement when investigating an
prosecuting organized crime groups.
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
The Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Section prosecutes violations of federal narcotics laws
including the illegal trafficking of cocaine, crack, heroin, methamphetamine and other
controlled substances. Federal prosecutions focus in particular on the importation of illegal
narcotics, interstate, large-scale or organized drug trafficking, or individuals or groups that u
violence in the course of drug dealing. State and local authorities, such as the Philadelphia
Police and the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, prosecute the vast majority of narcotics
offenders. This office focuses its efforts on international, interstate and organized drug
offenders, coordinating its efforts with the state and local authorities. The United States
Attorney's Office also prosecutes cases involving the diversion of prescription drugs for illega
sale.
The United States Attorney's Office participates in Weed & Seed, a program designed to crea
a partnership between law enforcement and community groups to improve neighborhoods. F
more information on the Weed & Seed program, go to the following link - Weed & Seed - or
contact William Hausmann of the U.S. Attorney's Office at (215) 861-8274.
Criminal prosecutions brought by this office are most often investigated by one of the followi
federal agencies, frequently acting together with state and local authorities:
x
x
x
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 215-861-3474

Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) 215-418-4000
Immigration and Customs Enforcement 215-597-4305
Page 29 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
amgroup01@msn.com
Printed: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:10 PM
From :
Stan Caterbone <amgroup01@msn.com>
Sent :
Friday, March 30, 2007 11:06 AM
To :
Lisa_Owings@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
Subject :
Follow Up on AG Gonzales & Meehan
Attachment :
FederalCivilActionvLancasterCountyJudicialAddendumtoComplaintMarch302007.pdf (1.83
MB)
Please review attached.

Stan Caterbone
mailto:
amgroup01@msn.com
Fax: (717) 427-1621
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Page 30 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
United States Attorney's Office

Eastern District of Pennsylvania
USAO Homepage
Home
United States Attorney Patrick L. Meehan
About the Office
On September 17, 2001, Patrick L. Meehan was sworn in as

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The United States Attorneys Office, located in Philadelphia, is
comprised of over 200 attorneys and support staff. During his
first year as U.S. Attorney, under an Executive Order from
President Bush, Mr. Meehan formed the Anti-Terrorism Task Force
(ATTF) to combat and prevent future terrorist attacks. The ATTF,
later renamed the Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC), in the
Eastern District is a coordinated partnership among federal, state,
and local law enforcement and emergency responders and is
recognized as a national model.
US Attorney
Patrick Meehan
Report a Crime
Victim/Witness
Resources
Court Schedule
Media
In addition to its work in counter-terrorism, the U.S. Attorneys

Office, under Mr. Meehans leadership, has been nationally
recognized for its work in combating violent crime. In
implementing the Presidents Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative, Mr. Meehan has obtained
unprecedented cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies
throughout the district. Specifically, in partnership with the nine elected district attorneys in
region, Mr. Meehans office has adopted cases against some of the most violent criminals in th
district for federal prosecution. These prosecutions have led to average prison sentences of
almost nine years -- far more severe than had those same cases been prosecuted locally.
Summer
Internships
District Programs
& Initiatives
Contact Info.
Search
Most recently, Mr. Meehan developed what is now called the Route 222 Corridor Anti-Gang
Initiative. Local elected officials, federal, state, and local law enforcement, along with
community and faith based organizations have come together to prevent and fight the
insurgence of gangs in an area spanning five cities and four counties in rural and industrial pa
of the district. The program calls for a coordinated response among law enforcement, along w
an increase in prevention programs in schools and community organizations, plus specialized
services for former inmates returning to their neighborhoods.
Mr. Meehan has made the protection of children, senior citizens, and the disadvantaged a top
priority in his office. Not only has the office prosecuted many of those who prey on children vi
the Internet, but Mr. Meehan has convened dozens of community forums to educate parents o
how they can protect their children from becoming victims. The office has also prosecuted
nursing homes and elder care facilities for failing to provide the required services to senior
citizens, and has brought cases against predatory lenders who prey on senior citizens and
disadvantaged homeowners. In addition, the office continues its nationally recognized work in
healthcare fraud and has achieved total settlements of over half a billion dollars the last two
years with several of the nations largest pharmaceutical companies and pharmacy benefit
managers.
In the area of corporate fraud, Mr. Meehan was invited by President Bush to serve on the
Corporate Fraud Task Force. The Task Force provides direction for the investigation and
prosecution of everything from securities and accounting fraud to related financial crimes
committed by CEOs and employees. Mr. Meehan has also served on the White Collar Fraud
subcommittee of the Attorney Generals Advisory Committee and remains dedicated to bringin
cases against public officials who illegally use their office for personal gain.
Mr. Meehans career in public service began in 1995 when he was elected District Attorney of
Delaware County, Pennsylvania. His tenure as District Attorney was highlighted by a number
Page 31 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
community-based initiatives. He created the Special Victims Unit for Domestic Violence, which
insured that prosecutions could proceed without requiring the victim to testify. This encourage
victims to apply for protection from abuse orders. Mr. Meehan was instrumental in expanding
the number of Youth Aid Panels for first time offenders and in establishing a truancy project to
cut daytime crime. Mr. Meehans efforts led to the establishment of the Department of Justice
Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force here in Pennsylvania.
Prior to being elected District Attorney, Mr. Meehan served as senior counsel and executive
director for United States Senator Arlen Specter, and worked as an associate with the law firm
of Dilworth Paxson. He earned a B.A. in 1978 from Bowdoin College and his J.D. from Temple
University School of Law in 1986. Mr. Meehan grew up in Cheltenham, Pennsylvania, and
currently resides in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania.
Last Updated: 01/31/2007 (SM)
Department of Justice | USA.gov | Privacy Policy | Project Safe Neighborhoods | PSN Grants | www.regulations.
Page 32 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts

USAO Homepage
Home
About The Office
About the Office
The United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is one of the large
in the country with 134 Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) currently on staff. There a
121 non-attorney positions in the office. The USAO is located at 615 Chestnut Street in
downtown Philadelphia. The office is divided into three divisions: Criminal, Civil and Organized
Crime Strike Force.
US Attorney
Patrick Meehan
Report a Crime
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Victim/Witness
Resources
Court Schedule
Media
Summer
Internships
District Programs
& Initiatives

Financial Institution Fraud
Government and Health Care Fraud
Official Corruption, Fraud and Civil Rights
Firearms
Violent Crime, Terrorism and Immigration
Frauds
Computer Crimes
Contact Info.
Criminal Division
Search
The Criminal division is the largest group of attorneys in the office. The division consists of 93
Assistant United States Attorneys. For management purposes, the Criminal Division is divided
into eight teams. Each team has a team leader who also serves as the chief of cases in a
particular subject. Attorneys in the Criminal Division are assigned to teams and the team
leader serves as an administrative head of the team. Our criminal assistants are generalists
within all areas of criminal law.
The team leaders also serve as subject matter chiefs. They maintain expertise in these areas
and maintain relationships with the investigative agencies in their subject matter. The section
are:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Narcotics
Financial Institution Fraud and Identity Theft
Government Fraud, Health Care Fraud, and Environmental Crimes
Official Corruption, Tax Fraud and Civil Rights
Firearms
Violent Crime, Terrorism and Immigration Fraud
Fraud
Computer Crimes
The Criminal Division also includes approximately 51 Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigne
from other federal agencies and local prosecutor's offices to handle firearms offenses and oth
rmatters.
Civil Division
f
Page 33 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
x
United States Postal Inspection Service 215-895-8450
If anyone has information regarding narcotics trafficking, please contact Thomas Perricone,
Chief of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section at (215) 861-8419, or one of the federal
agencies listed above. The Philadelphia Police Department drug hotline is (215) 686-3784.
The Financial Institution Fraud Section is responsible for prosecuting a broad spectrum of ban
fraud acts and schemes designed to profit persons both inside and outside and institution. Th
Section also investigates/prosecutes crime in other related areas. Prosecutions supervised by
the Financial Institution Fraud Section include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Bank Fraud - Major bank fraud matters include check kites, false loans, embezzlemen
and misapplication of bank funds by insiders, counterfeit, stolen and forged checks.
Federal Agencies:
FBI (215) 418-4000
U.S. Secret Service (215) 861-3300
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) (202) 416-2912
Credit Card Fraud - FBI / U.S. Secret Service / U.S. Postal Inspection Service (215)
895-8450
Counterfeit Currency - U.S. Secret Service
Food Stamp Fraud - Department of Agriculture (610) 337-2237
Money Laundering - FBI / U.S. Secret Service
ICE (215) 597-4305
U.S. Postal Inspection Service
Immigration and Passport Fraud - BCBP (215) 597-4606
State Department (215) 861-3370
Communications Fraud - U.S. Secret Service - Clone Phone
Identity Theft - FBI / U.S. Secret Service / U.S. Postal / Social Security I.G. For mor
information about Identity Theft, go to the following link: Identity Theft
The Chief of the Financial Institution Fraud is Richard Goldberg who may be contacted at (21
861-8439.
The Government Fraud, Health Care Fraud, and Environmental Crimes Section oversees fede
criminal prosecutions of offense such as:
x
x
x
x
x
Major health care fraud matters involving false billings and other schemes that
victimize patients, the Food and Drug Administration, health care providers, private
insurers and government insurers such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Frauds committed against agencies of the Department of Defense, or other
government buyers, by suppliers of materials in fulfillment of government contracts
Thefts and frauds involving government programs, including workmen's compensatio
social security, housing, and similar programs administered by other government
agencies
Fraudulent violations of Department and Agriculture laws prohibiting the sale of
adulterated foods
Crimes against the United States Postal Service, including thefts, embezzlements and
threats against postal employees
In appropriate cases involving health care fraud and fraud on government agencies, the
criminal division coordinates with the office's Affirmative Civil Enforcement Program.
If anyone has information regarding health care fraud, a fraud involving a government
f f
Page 34 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
program, or an environmental crime, please contact Catherine Votaw, the Chief of the
Government and Health Care Fraud Section, at (215) 861-8303. In addition, the FBI, or the
Office of the Inspector General of Health and Human Services, (215) 861-4586, may be
contacted.

The Official Corruption, Tax Fraud and Civil Rights Section handles the following matters:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
All major public official corruption involving local, state and federal officials, including
bribery, kickbacks and extortion
All police corruption
Tax offenses and crimes that undermine the integrity of the Internal Revenue Service
and its programs, including IRS employee theft and robbery
Corruption, theft and racketeering by labor leaders and pension fund
administrators/trustees
The interstate theft/transportation of goods and operations involving automobile
theft/replating or chop shops
The unlicensed export of military articles of high technology to foreign governments
Civil Rights Violations
If any information exists concerning the activity involving any of these types of offenses,
please contact Mike Schwartz, Chief of the Corruption, Labor Racketeering and Tax Section a
(215) 861-8923.
Firearms
The Firearms Section prosecutes the violations of federal laws in the following subject matter
Firearms and Explosives
x
x
x
x
x
Unlicensed sale of firearms, ammunition and explosives

Convicted felons in possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives
False statements in the acquisition of firearms, ammunition and explosives
Possessing/using/carrying firearms or explosives in federal crimes of violence or drug
trafficking
Project Safe Neighborhood falls under this section. This is a cooperative effort with
local law enforcement to reduce gun violence and improve community safety
throughout our district
To report a violation of these types of offenses, please contact a federal agent at the Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) at one of the following telephone numbers:
x
x
x
Firearms - Convicted felons possessing firearms: (215) 717-4749

Illegal sale of firearms without a license, false statements to acquire a firearm: (215)
717-4801
The Chief of the Firearms Section is Richard Barrett, (215) 861-8420.
Violent Crimes, Terrorism & Immigration
The Violent Crimes Terrorism and Immigrations Section investigates crimes which jeopardize
public safety: bank robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, terrorism, extortion, and arson. Cases in
this area are investigated by a federal agency, such as FBI, USSS, ICE, and ATF.
f
Page 35 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
This section coordinates the federal law response to International and Domestic terrorism
threats and directs the state, federal and local, Anti Terrorism Task Force (ATTF). Allegations
about crimes in this section should be made first to the federal investigatory agencies or a lo
police department if there is an immediate threat to public safety. The Chief of the Violent
Crimes, Terrorism & Immigrations Section is David Webb and he can be reached at (215) 86
8450.
Frauds
The Consumer and Commercial Fraud Section oversees federal criminal prosecution of offens
such as:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Consumer fraud, including telemarketing fraud, sweepstakes and premiums fraud,

fraud by businesses against customers
Securities fraud, including embezzlement by brokers, insiders trading, and false
statements or promises to investors
Investment fraud in investments other than securities, stocks and bonds, including
franchise fraud, business investments and fictitious charity solicitations
Computer fraud, including use of the internet to commit fraud
Copyright, trademark and trade secret fraud
Insurance fraud, including fictitious accidents, false medical claims and fraud insuran
companies against policy holders
Bankruptcy fraud, including diversion of assets by trustees or debtors and false
statements to the bankruptcy court
Commercial fraud, including fraud against businesses and large thefts of funds by
corporate insiders
In addition to laws prohibiting specific unlawful activity, broad federal statutes protect agains
fraud, making any fraudulent scheme a federal crime if the United States mail or a courier
service is used in its commission, or if interstate wire transfers, telephone calls, fax
transmissions, e-mails or other interstate communications are used in the fraud.
If anyone has information regarding frauds, please call the U.S. Attorney's Office, Fraud
Section, at (215) 861-8570. Peter Schenck is the Chief of the Fraud Section. The FBI and the
U.S. Postal Inspection Service may also be contacted at the telephone numbers previously
listed.
Computer Crimes
Computer Crimes Section focuses on the ever-growing area of internet crime; computer
intrusions, denial of service attacks, theft of intellectual property and child exploitation. Case
are primarily investigated by the FBI, United States Secret Service, Immigration and Custom
Enforcement and the Postal Service.
Information on how to contact those agencies can be found on this website under "How to
Report a Crime." The Chief of Computer Crimes, Michael L. Levy, can be reached at (215)
861-8599.
Department of Justice | USA.gov | Privacy Policy | Project Safe Neighborhoods | PSN Grants | www.regulations.
Page 36 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts

USAO Homepage
Home
Contact Information
About the Office

Address:
US Attorney
Patrick Meehan
Report a Crime
Victim/Witness
Resources

615 Chestnut Street
Suite 1250
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Phone:
(215) 861-8200
Fax:
(215) 861-8609
Court Schedule
Media
Summer
Internships
District Programs
& Initiatives
U.S. v Capell &
Buttery
Media Contact:
Richard.Manieri@usdoj.gov
Contact the Webmaster:
Linda.Mitchell4@usdoj.gov
PLEASE NOTE: The United States Attorney's Office does not respond to inquiries made
to this website. If you wish to make a request for information, you may contact our offi
at the above phone number.
Contact Info.
Search EDPA
Department of Justice | USA.gov | Privacy Policy | Project Safe Neighborhoods | PSN Grants | www.regula
Page 37 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
U.S. attorney offers anti-gang strategy

By Dave Pidgeon, Staff
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Apr 20, 2007 1:36 AM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. - U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan outlined three ways to curb local gang activity and violence Thursday.
He said the strategy employs enforcement, prevention and rehabilitating perpetrators before they return to society after serving their
sentence.
The final part of that strategy is as vital as the first two, according to the federal prosecutor.
Rehabbing prisoners means "they can return (to society) in a productive way instead of resuming or being lured by the opportunities
to commit crime or become part of a drug network or become a part of a gang," Meehan said.
Meehan was one of the speakers at the annual banquet for Lancaster Area Victim Offender Reconciliation Program. The event was
held at Willow Valley Resort and Conference Center and was attended by about 200 people.
Since 2005, the Justice Department has blamed gang members for 50 homicides, 1,119 aggravated assaults, 1,163 robberies, 2,667
burglaries and 2,594 drug-related crimes in cities along Route 222, including Lancaster.
Gang violence in Lancaster and several communities along the 87-mile Route 222 corridor has attracted the attention of both local
and federal law-enforcement officials. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in 2006 established a $2.5 million federal grant aimed
at aiding local anti-gang efforts.
Gangs like the Bloods, the Cash Money Boys, the Crips, the Gangster Disciples, Hells Angels, the Latin Kings and 50 Million Soldiers
have operated in Lancaster for years, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
In January, 7-year-old Brianna Pratt of Lancaster was severely wounded by a bullet when she became caught in a crossfire from two
gangs.
Children aren't just victims of gang-related crime but are joining gangs at alarming ages, local police officials have said. Membership
is beginning at age 11 or younger.
At Thursday's banquet, J. Robert Flores, administrator for the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, called on adults and
public officials to act in a manner that sets high standards for children in their communities.
"When they are looking at us, and they are looking at us all the time, we build (their) conscience," Flores said. "We also have to
make sure we have to be clear about our social disapproval," so children know there are limits and consequences.
E-mail: dpidgeon@lnpnews.com
Page 38 of 107
Alberto Gonzales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 of 34
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Alberto Gonzales
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alberto R. Gonzales (born August 4, 1955) was the 80th

United States Attorney General, appointed in February 2005
by President George W. Bush, becoming the highest-ranking
Hispanic American in executive government to date.[1] He
was the first Hispanic to serve as White House Counsel, and
earlier he had been Bush's General Counsel during his
governorship of Texas. Gonzales had also served as Secretary
of State of Texas and then as a Texas Supreme Court Justice.
Gonzales's tenure as U.S. Attorney General was marked by
controversy regarding warrantless surveillance of U.S.
citizens and the legal authorization of so-called "Enhanced
interrogation techniques" (i.e., much later, generallyacknowledged as constituting torture), in the U.S.
government's post-9/11 "war on terrorism". Following
partisan calls for his removal, Gonzales resigned from the
office "in the best interests of the department," on August 27,
2007, effective September 17, 2007.[2] Democrats were
particularly opposed to Gonzales presiding over the firings of
several U.S. Attorneys who had refused back-channeled
White House directives to prosecute political enemies
allegedly causing the office of Attorney General to become
improperly politicized.[3]
In 2008, Gonzales began a mediation and consulting practice.
Additionally, he taught a political science course and served
as a diversity recruiter at Texas Tech University. Gonzales is
currently the Dean of Belmont University College of Law, in
Nashville, Tennessee, where he currently teaches
Constitutional Law, Separation of Powers, National Security
Law and First Amendment Law. He is also counsel at a
Nashville-based law firm, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis,
where he advises clients on special matters, government
investigations and regulatory matters. He often writes opinion
pieces for national newspapers [4][5] and appears on national
news programs.[6][7] He was ranked one of "Newsmax's 50
Most Influential Latino Republicans" in 2016.[8]
Contents
80th United States Attorney General

In office
February 3, 2005 September 17, 2007
President
George W. Bush
Preceded by
John Ashcroft
Succeeded by
Michael Mukasey
White House Counsel
In office
January 20, 2001 February 3, 2005
President
George W. Bush
Preceded by
Beth Nolan
Succeeded by
Harriet Miers
Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court

In office
January 3, 1999 January 20, 2001
Appointed by
George W. Bush
Preceded by
Raul Gonzalez
Succeeded by
Wallace Jefferson
100th Secretary of State of Texas

In office
January 1, 1998 January 3, 1999
1 Personal life
2 Early career
3 Recognition
Alberto Gonzales
Governor
Page 39 of 107
George W. Bush
8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
4 Counsel to Governor Bush

5 White House Counsel
5.1 Executive Order 13233
5.2 War on Terrorism
6 Attorney general
7 Speculation over a Supreme Court nomination
8 Controversial achievements
8.1 Dismissal of U.S. attorneys
8.2 Right to writ of habeas corpus in the U.S.
Constitution
8.3 Support for use of torture
8.4 NSA domestic eavesdropping program
8.5 Objectivity
9 Resignation
9.1 Demand
9.2 Announcement
9.3 Successor
10 After resignation
10.1 Investigations
10.2 Later career
10.3 Texas Tech University
10.4 Grand jury indictment
10.5 International investigation
11 Texas Supreme Court opinions
11.1 Majority opinions
11.2 Concurring opinions
11.3 Partial dissent, partial concurrence
12 See also
13 References
14 External links
Preceded by
Tony Garza
Succeeded by
Elton Bomer
Personal details
Born
August 4, 1955
San Antonio, Texas, U.S.
Political party
Republican
Alma mater
Rice University
Harvard University
Religion
Roman Catholicism
Military service
Allegiance
United States
Service/branch
United States Air Force
Years of service
19731975
Personal life
Alberto Gonzales was born to a Catholic family[9] in San Antonio, Texas, and raised in Humble, a town outside
of Houston. Of Mexican descent, he was the second of eight children born to Maria (Rodriguez) and Pablo M.
Gonzales.[10] His father, who died in 1982, was a migrant worker and then a construction worker with a second
grade education. His mother worked at home raising eight children and had a sixth grade education. Gonzales
and his family of ten lived in a small, two-bedroom home built by his father and uncles with no telephone and no
hot running water.[1] According to Gonzales, he is unaware whether immigration documentation exists for three
of his grandparents who were born in Mexico and who, like Gonzales and his family, were poor and uneducated
and thus may have entered and resided in the United States illegally from Mexico or they may have entered and
resided legally.[11]
An honors student at MacArthur High School in unincorporated Harris County, Gonzales enlisted in the United
States Air Force in 1973, for a four-year term of enlistment. He served one year at a remote radar site with 100
other GIs at Fort Yukon, Alaska, located north of the Arctic Circle, before being released from active duty to
2 of 34
Page 40 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
attend the USAFA Prep School. Subsequently, he received an appointment to the United States Air Force
Academy.[12] Gonzales was on the Dean's List every semester and served as President of the Freshman Class
Council at the Academy. He was on the Superintendent's List and Commandant's List for two semesters. Prior to
beginning his third year at the academy, which would have caused him to incur a further service obligation, he
left the Academy and was released from the enlistment contract. He transferred to Rice University in Houston,
where he was a resident of Lovett College.[13] Gonzales had dreamed of attending Rice as a boy when he sold
soft drinks at Rice University football games. He went on to be selected as the Charles Parkhill Scholar of
Political Science and he earned a bachelor's degree with honors in political science in 1979.[14] He then earned a
Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Harvard Law School in 1982.
Gonzales has been married twice: he and his first wife, Diane Clemens, divorced in 1985; he and his second
wife, Rebecca Turner Gonzales, have three sons.
Early career
Gonzales was an attorney in private practice from 1982 until 1994 with the Houston law firm Vinson and Elkins,
where he became a partner the first Hispanic partner (along with one other new partner that year) in the firm's
history and where he worked primarily with business clients. In 1994, he was named general counsel to
then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, rising to become Secretary of State of Texas in 1997 and finally to be
named to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, both appointments made by Governor Bush. Gonzales received the
endorsement of every statewide official and every major Texas newspaper in his election bid to remain on the
court in the Republican Primary in 2000, a race he won with over 57% of the vote. The citizens of Texas elected
Gonzales to a full six-year term on the Supreme Court in the November 2000 general election with 81% of the
vote.[15]
Recognition
In addition to his political and legal career, Gonzales was active in the community. He was a board director of
the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston during this
same period. In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston
Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice
University. He was a board trustee of the Texas Bar Foundation from 1996 to 1999; a board director for the State
Bar of Texas from 1991 to 1994; a board director for Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Greater Houston from 1985
to 1991; a board director for Catholic Charities of Houston from 19891993, a board director for
INROADS/Houston, Inc. in 1994; and a board director for the Association for the Advancement of MexicanAmericans from 1991 to 1992. Gonzales was Special Legal Counsel for the Houston Host Committee for the
1990 Summit of Industrialized Nations, and provided pro bono legal services to the Host Committee for the
1992 Republican National Convention in Houston. He served as Chair of the Advisory Committee of the Texas
Real Estate Center (a committee to which he was appointed by Texas Governor Bill Clements), President of the
Houston Hispanic Forum, President of the Houston Hispanic Bar Association and Chair of the Republican
National Hispanic Assembly of Harris County. Gonzales has received numerous professional honors, including
the President's Award in 1989 from the Houston Bar Association, and the Hispanic Salute Award in 1989 from
the Houston Metro Ford Dealers and Ford Division, Ford Motor Company for his work in the field of education.
He was recognized as the Woodrow Seals Outstanding Young Lawyer of Houston in 1992 by the Houston
Young Lawyers Association and as the Outstanding Young lawyer of Texas in 1992 by the Texas Young
Lawyers Association. Additionally, he received the Commitment to Leadership Award in 1993 from the United
Way of the Texas Gulf Coast. He was recognized as one of the Five Outstanding Young Houstonians in 1994 by
the Houston Junior Chamber of Commerce, and as one of the Five Outstanding Young Texans in 1994 by the
3 of 34
Page 41 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
4 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Texas Junior Chamber of Commerce, and in 1999 was elected to the prestigious American Law Institute based
upon his contributions to the law. He was a member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young
Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995. He received the Presidential
Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent. In
1999, he was named Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association.
Based on his record of accomplishments, Gonzales was recognized as a Distinguished Alumnus of Rice
University in 2002 by the Association of Rice Alumni and was honored the same year by the Harvard Law
School Association with its Harvard Law School Association Award. He received President's Awards in 2003
from both the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the League of United Latin American
Citizens. He was recognized with the Outstanding Texas Leader Award in 2002 by the John Ben Shepperd
Public Leadership Institute during the Texas Leadership Forum. Additionally, in 2003, he received the Gary L.
McPherson Distinguished Alumni Award from the American Council of Young Political Leaders; the
Chairman's Leadership Award from the Texas Association of Mexican American Chamber of Commerce, the
Truinfador Award from the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, the Hispanic Hero Award from the Association for the
Advancement of Mexican Americans and the Good Neighbor Award from the United States-Mexican Chamber
of Commerce for his dedication and leadership in promoting a civil society and equal opportunity. In 2003,
Gonzales also received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Travis County, Texas Republican Party. In
2004, Gonzales was honored with the Exemplary Leader Award by the Houston American Leadership Forum. In
2005, he was honored with the Hector Barreto, Sr. Award by the Latino Coalition and with a President's Award
by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
As the son of former migrant workers, many recognized Gonzales' appointment as Attorney General of the
United States as the embodiment of the American dream. His work in the Hispanic community and his
achievements as a role model earned him recognition as Hispanic American of the Year by HISPANIC
Magazine in 2005 and one of The 25 Most Influential Hispanics in America by TIME Magazine. Gonzales was
inducted into the Class of 2005 in the Academy of Achievement.[16] Gonzales received the Distinguished
Leadership Award in 2006 from Leadership Houston. In 2007, as he left government service, he was honored
with the Director's Award from the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense
Medal for Exceptional Public Service.
While born in San Antonio, Gonzales is considered a native son of Houston. On May 20, 2006, Houston Mayor
Bill White proclaimed "Alberto R. Gonzales Day" in Houston for his contributions to the betterment of the City
of Houston. Academic institutions have also recognized Gonzales' achievements and contributions. He received
an Honorary Doctor of Laws in 2002 from The Catholic University of America; an Honorary Degree in Arts and
Letters in 2003 from Miami-Dade Community College; an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws in 2005 from
the University of District of Columbia; an Honorary Degree in Associate of Arts in 2005 from the Houston
Community College System; and an Honorary Alumnus Award in 2007 from Southern Methodist University.
Counsel to Governor Bush

As counsel to Governor Bush, Gonzales helped advise Bush in connection with jury duty when he was called in
a 1996 Travis County drunk driving case. The case led to controversy during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign
because Bush's answers to the potential juror questionnaire did not disclose Bush's own 1976 misdemeanor
drunk driving conviction.[17] Gonzales made no formal request for Bush to be excused from jury duty (to the
contrary, Gonzales made it clear Bush was ready to serve as a juror), however, he did raise a possible conflict of
interest because as the Governor, Bush might be called upon to pardon the accused in the case. The defense
counsel has stated he had already thought of this conflict of interest problem for his client and had planned on
his own to ask the judge to strike Bush from the jury. Nonetheless, Texas Monthly described Gonzales' work
Page 42 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
5 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
here as "canny lawyering".[18]

As Governor Bush's counsel in Texas, Gonzales also reviewed all clemency requests. A 2003 article in The
Atlantic Monthly asserts that Gonzales gave insufficient counsel, and failed to second-guess convictions and
failed appeals. The White House said the executive summaries prepared represented a small fraction of
information provided to the Governor and sought only to document the governor's final decisions rather than
recommend a course of action. Pete Wassdorf, head of the General Counsel's office for the Texas Attorney
General, who served as Gonzales' deputy at the time, also said additional information about some of the cases
was provided to Bush in other documents.[19] Under Section II, Article 4 of the Texas Constitution, the
Governor cannot grant a pardon or commute a death sentence except with a majority vote recommendation of
the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, so Bush was constrained in granting clemency even if he had wanted to
do so in a case. Only one death sentence was overturned by Governor Bush, and the state of Texas executed
more prisoners during Gonzales's term than any other state.[20][21] Gonzales' deputy general counsel from 1995
to 1999, Pete Wassdorf, wrote that The Atlantic Monthly story written by Berlow paints an inaccurate and
incomplete picture of the clemency process under Bush. Wassdorf, who served with General Gonzales's office
during the period of the clemency memo wrote:
"Berlow also fails to recognize that according to American jurisprudence, clemency is a discretionary act
of grace bestowed by the governor under the state's constitution. It is not part of the judicial process. If the
governor chooses never to grant clemency; or to exercise that constitutional authority sparingly, and then
only when legitimate questions about guilt or innocence persist or when legal issues are raised that have
not been reviewed by the courts, or to grant it in every case, he may clearly do so. Governor Bush took a
consistent, principled position on clemency, and Gonzales' counsel served his client well by bringing all
credible matters raised by the condemned to the Governor's attention. The fact that the author disagrees
with the governor's standards does not make them wrong; nor does it make Gonzales' summaries deficient.
Finally, I want to state for the record that the general counsel's office approved each of these cases with
the greatest of care and sensitivity. I categorically disagree with any suggestions otherwise."[22]
White House Counsel

Executive Order 13233
Executive Order 13233, drafted by Gonzales, was issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001,
although the White House had been working on this order for some months. The order dealt with the release of
presidential records, making it possible for current and former presidents to assert executive privilege over the
release of privileged presidential records. The order gives to the President the power to delay the release of
presidential records longer than the congressionally mandated period of 12 years after the president leaves
office. Executive Order 13233 revoked President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12667 on the same subject
and had the effect of delaying the release of Reagan's papers, which were due to be made public when Bush took
office in 2001. While the policy was being drawn up, Gonzales as Counsel to the President issued a series of
orders to the U.S. Archivist to delay the release of Reagan's records.[23] This order was the subject of a number
of lawsuits and Congressional attempts to overturn it. In 2007, a D.C. district court ordered the Archivist not to
obey this order, finding it to be "arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act."[24] On January 21, 2009 (his first day in office), President Barack Obama revoked Executive
Order 13233 by issuing Executive Order 13489, with wording largely matching Reagan's Executive Order
12667.
War on Terrorism
Page 43 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
6 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Gonzales is considered a key architect in establishing the legal foundations for the war on terror.[25] His service
as White House Counsel and as Attorney General in the fight on terrorism was recognized by the Director of the
CIA in 2007 with a Directors Award, that includes a citation that reads: "During a period of tremendous tumult
and change brought on by an unparalleled series of terrorist attacks and continuing threats against the American
people, he [Gonzales] has provided unstinting support and wise counsel to many elements of the Community in
their conduct of a critical and unprecedented range of operational activities that saved countless lives and
protected the nation from further attacks. He performed his role with exemplary skill, dedication, and humor, all
the while ensuring that the Community could carry out its vital mission in a manner faithful to the country's laws
and values. For his service, Judge Gonzales has earned the lasting gratitude and respect of U.S. intelligence
officers everywhere, reflecting great credit upon himself and the Federal Service.[26]
After consulting with lawyers from throughout the Administration, including the Department of Justice which is
charged by law to provide legal advice to the Executive Branch, Gonzales helped draft a controversial memo in
January 2002 that explored whether the Geneva Convention section III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War
(GPW) applied to Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan and held in detention facilities around
the world, including Camp X-Ray in Guantnamo Bay, Cuba. The memo made several arguments both for and
against providing GPW protection to Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. The memo concluded that certain
provisions of GPW were outdated and ill-suited for dealing with captured Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. In the
memo, Gonzales described as "quaint" the provisions that require providing captured Al-Qaeda and Taliban
fighters "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments," because "the war against
terrorism is a new kind of war." (The British government later reached a similar conclusion when it said, "the
Geneva Conventions are failing to provide necessary protection because they lack clarity and are out of
date"[27]) The memo went on, "It (the war against terrorism) is not the traditional clash between nations adhering
to the laws of war that formed the backdrop for GPW. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other
factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to
avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly
killing civilians."[28]
Gonzales later explained, "The old ways may not work here. That's what the memo was intended to convey to
the President. I never meant to convey to the President that the basic values in the Geneva Convention were
outdated." He noted that he was not the first to draw such conclusions from some of the more nitpicky
requirements in the international treaties. He argued that existing military regulations and instructions from the
President were more than adequate to ensure that the principles of the Geneva Convention would be applied. He
also expressed a concern that undefined language in Common Article III of GPW, such as "outrages upon
personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" could make officials and military leaders subject to the War Crimes
Act of 1996 if actions were deemed to constitute violations of the Act.[28] Attorney General John Ashcroft made
a similar argument on behalf of the Justice Department by letter to the President dated February 1, 2002, when
he wrote that a presidential determination "against treaty application would provide the highest assurance that no
court would subsequently entertain charges that American military officers, intelligence officials or law
enforcement officials violated Geneva Convention rules relating to field conduct, detention conduct or
interrogation of detainees. The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes violations of parts of the Geneva Convention a
crime in the United States."[29]
Shortly after September 26, 2002, a Gulfstream government jet carrying David Addington, Gonzales, John A.
Rizzo, William Haynes II, two Justice Department lawyers, Alice S. Fisher and Patrick F. Philbin, and the Office
of Legal Counsel's Jack Goldsmith flew to Camp Delta to view Mohammed al-Kahtani, then to Charleston,
South Carolina to view Jose Padilla, and finally to Norfolk, Virginia to view Yaser Esam Hamdi[30] and to
examine related facilities to confirm they were consistent with legal requirements.
Page 44 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
7 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
According to a New York Times report, despite an unclassified legal opinion issued in December 30, 2004 that
declared torture "abhorrent," shortly after Gonzales became Attorney General in February 2005 the Justice
Department issued another, classified opinion dated May 10, 2005, which for the first time provided Central
Intelligence Agency explicit authorization to apply to terror suspects a combination of uncomfortable physical
and psychological tactics (under strict guidelines administered by trained personnel to ensure safety, and
monitored carefully by medical personnel). The legal opinion covered 13 techniques; it was recommended by
Deputy Attorney General James Comey for approval by Gonzales. That opinion echoed the earlier December
30, 2004 memo by declaring, "Torture is abhorrent both to American laws and values and to international norms.
The unusual repudiation of torture is reflected not only in our criminal laws, see, e.g., [8U.S.C. 2340-2340A],
but also in international agreements, in centuries of Anglo-American law, see, e.g., John H. Langbeen, Torture
and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Rgime (1977) ("Torture and the Law of Proof"), and
in the long-standing policy of the United States, repeatedly and recently reaffirmed by the President. Consistent
with these norms, the President has directed unequivocally that the United States is not to engage in torture."[31]
The May 10 opinion approving the 13 techniques claimed that its reasoning and conclusions are based upon and
fully consistent with the legal opinion issued on December 30, 2004, stating "Our analysis of this question is
controlled by this office's recently published opinion interpreting the anti-torture statute.... Much of the analysis
from our 2004 Legal Standards Opinion is reproduced below; all of it is incorporated by reference herein."[31]
Gonzales reportedly approved the a second May 10, 2005 classified legal memorandum on "combined effects"
over the policy objections of James B. Comey, the outgoing deputy attorney general, who told colleagues at the
Justice Department that they would all be "ashamed" when the world eventually learned of it. Patrick Leahy and
John Conyers, chairmen of the respective Senate and House Judiciary Committees, requested that the Justice
Department turn over documents related to the classified 2005 legal opinions to their committees for review. [32]
Gonzales also helped draft the Presidential Order which authorized the use of military tribunals to try terrorist
suspects. The order was approved as to legality by lawyers at the Department of Justice. The order directs that
the accused will receive a full and fair trial, and persons charged will be entitled to be represented by competent
counsel. The order was written to duplicate the military order issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and
found to be constitutional for use against Nazi saboteurs by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Exparte
Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 30 (1942). The use of military commissions has been found to be so vital to our national
security in the war on terror that their use have been approved and codified twice by Congress.[33] (In 2009, The
Obama administration stated it would abide by the Geneva Convention and described some of the enhanced
interrogation techniques established under Attorney General Gonzalez' tenure as torture.[34] On January 22,
2009, President Obama signed an executive order requiring the CIA to use only the 19 interrogation methods
outlined in the United States Army Field Manual on interrogations "unless the Attorney General with
appropriate consultation provides further guidance.")[35]
Gonzales fought with Congress to keep Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy task force documents from being
reviewed, and his arguments were ultimately upheld by courts. On July 2, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the Vice President, but remanded the case back to the D.C. Circuit. On May 11, 2005, the D.C. Circuit
threw out the lawsuit and ruled the Vice President was free to meet in private with energy industry
representatives in 2001 while drawing up the President's energy policy.[36]
Gonzales was also an early advocate of the controversial USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed by Congress
and signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001. The PATRIOT Act was subsequently renewed by
Congress and the President in March 2006 and again in February 2010. FBI Director Bob Mueller testified to the
Senate Intelligence Committee that many of the FBI's operational counter-terrorism successes since September
11 are the direct result of the changes incorporated in the PATRIOT Act.[37]
Attorney general
Page 45 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Gonzales's name was sometimes floated as a possible nominee to the

United States Supreme Court during Bush's first presidential term. On
November 10, 2004, it was announced that he would be nominated to
replace United States Attorney General John Ashcroft for Bush's second
term. Gonzales was regarded as a moderate compared to Ashcroft
because he was not seen as opposing abortion or affirmative action.
Although he has never stated publicly his support for abortion and later
as Attorney General, was the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case
Gonzales v. Carhart, which reinforced the ban on late-term abortion that
was previously overturned, and had stated publicly his opposition to
racial quotas, some people assumed Gonzales did not oppose abortion or
affirmative action. According to a Texas Monthly article, Gonzales has
never said he was pro-choice and he has publicly opposed racial
quotas.[38]
U.S. President George W. Bush

announces his nomination of
Gonzales to succeed Ashcroft as the
next Attorney General during a press
conference in the Roosevelt Room
Wednesday, November 10, 2004.
The perceived departure from some conservative viewpoints elicited

strong opposition to Gonzales that started during his Senate confirmation
proceedings at the beginning of President Bush's second term. The New York
Times quoted anonymous Republican officials as saying that Gonzales's
appointment to Attorney General was a way to "bolster Mr. Gonzales's
credentials" en route to a later Supreme Court appointment.[39]
Gonzales enjoyed broad bipartisan support in connection with his nomination,
including the support of former Democratic HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros and
Colorado Democratic Senator Ken Salazar. One writer noted, "A senator from
Pennsylvania said, 'I have always found him [Alberto Gonzales] to be
completely forthright, brutally honest in some cases telling me things I did not
want to hear but always forthright, always honest, sincere, serious. This is a
serious man who takes the responsibilities that have been given to him as a great
privilege and a great honor which he holds very carefully and gently in his
hands.' Said another senator, this one from Kentucky, 'Judge Gonzales is proof
that in America, there are no artificial barriers to success. A man or woman can
climb to any height that his or her talents can take them. For Judge Gonzales,
that is a very high altitude indeed. And luckily for his country, he is not quite
finished climbing yet.'"[1] The nomination was approved on February 3, 2005,
with the confirming vote largely split along party lines 6036 (54 Republicans
and 6 Democrats in favor, and 36 Democrats against, along with 4 abstentions: 3
Democrat and 1 Republican).[40] He was sworn in on February 3, 2005.
Justice Sandra Day

O'Connor presents Gonzales
to the audience after
swearing him in as Attorney
General, as Mrs. Gonzales
looks on.
Speculation over a Supreme Court nomination

Shortly before the July 1, 2005 retirement announcement of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States Sandra Day O'Connor, rumors started circulating that a memo had leaked from the White House
stating that upon the retirement of either O'Connor or Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist, that
Gonzales would be the first nominee for a vacancy on the Court.
Quickly, conservative stalwarts[41] such as National Review magazine[42] and Focus on the Family, among other
socially conservative groups, stated they would oppose a Gonzales nomination.[43]
8 of 34
Page 46 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Much of their opposition to Gonzales was based on his perceived support of abortion rights as a result of one
vote on a single case before the Texas Supreme Court, In re Jane Doe 5 (43 Tex. Sup. J.910).
In a series of cases before the Texas Supreme Court in 2000, the court was asked to construe for the first time
the 1999 Texas parental notification law forbidding a physician from performing an abortion on a pregnant,
unaccompanied minor without giving notice to the minor's parents at least 48 hours before the procedure.
However, Texas legislators adopted a policy to create a judicial bypass exception in those cases where (1) the
minor is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without
notification to either of her parents; (2) notification will not be in the best interest of the minor or (3) notification
may lead to physical, sexual or emotional abuse of the minor. The court was asked in these cases to discern
legislative intent for the first time to these subjective standards, presumably included in the law as a matter of
Texas policy and to make the law constitutional under U.S. Supreme Court precedents. In the seven parental
notification decisions rendered by the court, Gonzales voted to grant one bypass. For In re Jane Doe 5 his
concurring opinion began with the sentence, "I fully join in the Court's judgment and opinion." He went on,
though, to address the three dissenting opinions, primarily one by Nathan L. Hecht alleging that the court
majority's members had disregarded legislative intent in favor of their personal ideologies. Gonzales's opinion
dealt mostly with how to establish legislative intent. He wrote, "We take the words of the statute as the surest
guide to legislative intent. Once we discern the Legislature's intent we must put it into effect, even if we
ourselves might have made different policy choices." He added, "[T]o construe the Parental Notification Act so
narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute,
would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism," and "While the ramifications of such a law and the results
of the Court's decision here may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to
impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the Legislature."
Political commentators had suggested that Bush forecast the selection of Gonzales with his comments defending
the Attorney General made on July 6, 2005, in Copenhagen, Denmark. Bush stated, "I don't like it when a friend
gets criticized. I'm loyal to my friends. All of a sudden this fellow, who is a good public servant and a really fine
person, is under fire. And so, do I like it? No, I don't like it, at all." However, this speculation proved to be
incorrect, as Bush nominated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
After the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist on September 3, 2005, creating another vacancy, speculation
resumed that President George W. Bush might nominate Gonzales to the Court. This again proved to be
incorrect, as Bush decided to nominate Roberts to the Chief Justice position, and on October 3, 2005, nominated
Harriet Miers as Associate Justice, to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. On October 27, 2005, Miers
withdrew her nomination, again renewing speculation about a possible Gonzales nomination. This was laid to
rest when Judge Samuel Alito received the nomination and subsequent confirmation.
On September 11, 2005, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Wikiquote has quotations
chairman Arlen Specter was quoted as saying that it was "a little too
related to: Alberto
soon" after Gonzales's appointment as Attorney General for him to be
Gonzales
appointed to another position, and that such an appointment would
require a new series of confirmation hearings. "He [Gonzales] is attacked a lot," observes Larry Sabato, a
political analyst and the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, who adds that the serious
political spats "virtually eliminated him from the Supreme Court chase."[44]
Controversial achievements
Gonzales has been recognized for his work in the fight against terrorism[26] and his fight against sexual
predators. His leadership on behalf of children has been widely noted; Ernie Allen, President of the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, described Attorney General Gonzales' example in raising this issue
9 of 34
Page 47 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
to prominence as a "clear profile in courage".[45] President Bush in accepting Gonzales' resignation as Attorney
General said, "Al Gonzales has played a role in shaping our policies in the war on terror, and has worked
tirelessly to make this country safer. The PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act and other important laws
bear his imprint. Under his leadership, the Justice Department has made a priority of protecting children from
internet predators, and made enforcement of civil rights law a top priority. He aggressively and successfully
pursued public corruption and effectively combated gang violence. As Attorney General he played an important
role in helping to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. He did an outstanding job as
White House Counsel, identifying and recommending the best nominees to fill critically important federal court
vacancies."[46] Hector Flores, national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said this
about Gonzales "He is an American leader who happens to be Hispanic. When you are breaking new ground,
especially in the Attorney General's office, representing all of the federal government, he is ruling on his
knowledge of the law, whether you like or don't like it."[47]
During Gonzales' tenure, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were accused of
improperly, and perhaps illegally, using the USA PATRIOT Act to uncover personal information about U.S.
citizens.[48] The actions taken were found by the Justice Department Inspector General to be unintentional and
technical in nature. There was no finding of intent to violate the rights of citizens. Through his testimony before
Congress on issues ranging from the Patriot Act to U.S. Attorney firings, he commonly admitted ignorance.[49]
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys

By law, U.S. Attorneys are appointed for a term of four years, and each U.S. Attorney serves at the pleasure of
the President and is subject to removal by the President for any and no reason, so long as it is not for an illegal
or improper reason.[50] When Gonzales became Attorney General in 2005, he ordered a performance review of
all U.S. Attorneys[51] On December 7, 2006, seven United States attorneys were notified by the United States
Department of Justice that they were being dismissed, after the George W. Bush administration sought their
resignation.[52] One more, Bud Cummins, who had been informed of his dismissal in June 2006, announced his
resignation on December 15, 2006 effective December 20, 2006 upon being notified of Tim Griffin's
appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.[53][54][55] In the subsequent
congressional hearings and press reports, it was disclosed that additional U.S. attorneys were dismissed without
explanation to the dismissee in 2005 and 2006, and that at least 26 U.S. attorneys were at various times
considered for dismissal.[56]
Although U.S. attorneys can be dismissed at the discretion of the president, critics claimed that the dismissals
were either motivated by desire to install attorneys more loyal to the Republican party ("loyal Bushies," in the
words of Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's former chief of staff) or as retribution for actions or inactions damaging to
the Republican party. At least six of the eight had received positive performance reviews at the Department of
Justice.[57] However, DOJ officials Will Moschella and Monica Goodling both testified under oath that EARS
evaluations are office-wide reviews, they are not reviews of the U.S. Attorneys themselves[58] Gonzales testified
under oath that EARS evaluations do not necessarily reflect on the U.S. Attorney.[59] In other words, these
reviews were not evaluations of the performance of the fired federal prosecutors.
In a press conference given on March 13, Gonzales suggested that "incomplete information, was communicated
or may have been communicated to the Congress" and he accepted full responsibility.[60][61] Nonetheless,
Gonzales avowed that his knowledge of the process to fire and select new US attorneys was limited to how the
US attorneys may have been classified as "strong performers, not-as-strong performers, and weak performers."
Gonzales also asserted that was all he knew of the process, saying that "[I] was not involved in seeing any
memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the
10 of 34
Page 48 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Attorney General."[60]
However, Department of Justice records released on March 23 appeared to contradict some of the Attorney
General's assertions, indicating that on his Nov 27 schedule "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides
said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge."[62] Despite insisting that he was not involved in the
"deliberations" leading up to the firing of the attorneys, newly released emails also suggest that he had indeed
been notified and that he had given ultimate approval.
In his prepared testimony to Congress on April 19, 2007, Gonzales insisted he left the decisions on the firings to
his staff. However, ABC News obtained an internal department email showing that Gonzales urged the ouster of
Carol Lam, one of the fired attorneys, six months before she was asked to leave.[63] During actual testimony on
April 19, Gonzales stated at least 71 times that he couldn't recall events related to the controversy.[64]
His responses frustrated the Democrats on the committee, as well as several Republicans. One example of such
frustration came in an exchange between Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Gonzales regarding a November
2006 meeting. Sessions is one of the most conservative members of the Senate, and was one of the Bush
Administration's staunchest allies. At the meeting, the attorney firings were purportedly discussed, but Gonzales
did not remember such discussion. As reported by the Washington Post, the dialogue went as follows:
GONZALES: Well, Senator, putting aside the issue, of course, sometimes people's recollections are
different, I have no reason to doubt Mr. Battle's testimony [about the November meeting].
SESSIONS: Well, I guess I'm concerned about your recollection, really, because it's not that long
ago. It was an important issue. And that's troubling to me, I've got to tell you.
GONZALES: Senator, I went back and looked at my calendar for that week. I traveled to Mexico
for the inauguration of the new president. We had National Meth Awareness Day. We were working
on a very complicated issue relating to CFIUS.
GONZALES: And so there were a lot of other weighty issues and matters that I was dealing with
that week.[65]
Another example came when Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who had been the first lawmaker to call for
Gonzales' ouster, declined to ask his last round of questions. Instead, a visibly angry Schumer said there was no
point to further questioning and reiterated his call for Gonzales to resign. By Schumer's count, Gonzales had
stated "over a hundred times" that he didn't know or couldn't recall important details concerning the firings, and
also didn't seem to know about the workings of his own department. Gonzales responded that the onus was on
the committee to prove whether anything improper occurred. Schumer replied that Gonzales faced a higher
standard, and that under this standard he had to give "a full, complete and convincing explanation" for why the
eight attorneys were fired.[66]
The Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility commenced an investigation into the
removal of nine U.S. Attorneys. Their report was issued in September 2008. The report cited serious issues of
accountability removing a few of the U.S. Attorneys, but there was no finding that the nine U.S. Attorneys were
removed for illegal or improper reasons. To the contrary, the report concluded that Margaret Chiara and Kevin
Ryan were removed appropriately for management issues. Paul Charlton was removed for his action relating to a
death penalty case and unilateral implementation of an interrogation policy. The report found Carol Lam was
removed because of the Justice Department's concerns about the low number of gun and immigration
prosecutions in her district. The report concluded John McKay was asked to leave because of his disagreement
11 of 34
Page 49 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
with the Deputy Attorney General over an information-sharing program. The report could not cite to a reason
Dan Bogden was asked to leave, but there was no finding that anything illegal or improper occurred with his
removal. The report concluded Bud Cummins was asked to leave to make room for another political appointee
that he himself conceded under oath was qualified to serve as a U.S. Attorney. These findings were consistent
with testimony given by Gonzales. Politics was clearly involved. Likewise, the report concluded Todd Graves
was removed to settle a political dispute in Missouri. Again, this was motivated by politics. Finally, the report
found that it could not conclude that David Iglesias was removed for an improper reason. However, since the IG
had no authority to investigate Congress or the White House, the IG asked Attorney General Mukasey to appoint
a special prosecutor to investigate the Iglesias removal.[67] This special prosecutor found no wrongdoing in the
removal of David Iglesias. The DOJ IG found no criminal wrongdoing in the records. As the Wall Street Journal
reported "the Justice Department informed Congress on Wednesday that a special investigator in the case found
no evidence of wrongdoing.the investigator's final word is that no Administration official gave 'false
statements' to Congress or to the DOJ Inspector General, which carried out their own investigation."[68]
The report also found no evidence that Gonzales made false or misleading statements to Congress, thus clearing
him of accusations of perjury.[69]
The IG report did find that some statements made by Gonzales at a March 13, 2007 press conference about his
involvement were inaccurate. The report however does not conclude that Gonzales deliberately provided false
information.[70] He acknowledged from the outset his misstatements, accepted responsibility, and attempted to
set the record straight well before congressional testimony on April 19, 2007. Gonzales testified 18 months
before the IG reports that statements he made at the March 13, 2007 press conference were misstatements and
were overboard.[71] Further, in his written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, presented April 19,
2007, Gonzales wrote: "I misspoke at a press conference on March 13th when I said that I "was not involved in
any discussions about what was going on." That statement was too broad. At that same press conference, I made
clear that I was aware of the process; I said, "I knew my Chief of Staff was involved in the process of
determining who were the weak performers, where were the districts around the country where we could do
better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew". Of course, I knew about the process because of, at a
minimum, these discussions with Mr. Sampson. Thus, my statement about "discussions" was imprecise and
overboard, but it certainly was not in any way an attempt to mislead the American people."
In August 2009, White House documents released showed that Rove raised concerns directly with Gonzales and
that Domenici or an intermediary may have contacted the Justice Department as early as 2005 to complain.[72]
In contrast, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007: "I don't recall... Senator Domenici ever
requesting that Mr. Iglesias be removed."[72] In July 2010, Department of Justice prosecutors closed the
two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firings were not criminal, saying
"Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal
of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope
of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."[73]
The conclusion of the investigation caused one commentator to note, "a career Justice Department prosecutor
not beholden to any administration shows us that the witch hunt against Albert Gonzales was a politically
motivated sham."[74]
As the Wall Street Journal noted, when referring to Iglesias, "we'll note that his successor in New Mexico, who
was appointed by a panel of judges and not by President Bush, picked up the pace considerably in prosecuting
and winning convictions in political corruption cases. The contrast bears out the criticism at the time that
Iglesias has mismanaged his office."[75]
12 of 34
Page 50 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Gonzales acknowledged in his testimony in April 19, 2007 that he should have been more involved in the
process. He acknowledged this well before the Inspector General reached this conclusion. He said in his
congressional testimony that he should have been more precise in his press conference statements about the
firings well before the Inspector General reached this conclusion. Gonzales clarified misstatements made at the
March 13 press conference in subsequent interviews. Gonzales asked the Office of Professional Responsibility
to examine the records and supported the involvement of the Inspector General. He directed full cooperation
with all investigations by DOJ employees and agreed to release thousands of pages of internal DOJ documents.
The Inspector General found no intentional or criminal wrongdoing by Gonzales.[76]
Right to writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution

On January 18, 2007, Gonzales was invited to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he shocked the
committee's ranking member, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, with statements regarding the right of habeas
corpus in the United States Constitution.[77] An excerpt of the exchange follows:
GONZALES: The fact that the Constitutionagain, there is no express grant of habeas in the
Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it's never been the case, and I'm not a
Supreme
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away,
except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus,
unless there is an invasion or rebellion?[78]
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say, "Every individual in the
United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas." It doesn't say that. It
simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by [79]
(Full transcript and video (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/01/19/9703/gonzales-habeas/)) Senator Specter
was referring to 2nd Clause of Section 9 of Article One of the Constitution of the United States which reads:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or
Invasion the public Safety may require it." This passage has been historically interpreted to mean that the right
of habeas corpus is inherently established.[80] Gonzales dissents from the consensus view, siding with Professor
Erwin Chemerinsky, who said "[a]though the Constitution prohibits Congress from suspending the writ of
habeas corpus except during times of rebellion or invasion, this provision was probably meant to keep Congress
from suspending the writ and preventing state courts from releasing individuals who were wrongfully
imprisoned. The constitutional provision does not create a right to habeas corpus; rather federal statutes [do
so]."[81] Additionally, "the Constitutional Convention prevented Congress from obstructing the states courts'
ability to grant the writ, but did not try to create a federal constitutional right to habeas corpus".[82] "After all, if
the suspension clause itself were an affirmative grant of procedural rights to those held in federal custody, there
would have been little need for the first Congress to enact as it did, habeas corpus protections in the Judiciary
Act of 1789.[83] Chereminksy's argument has been denied by Justice Paul Stevens in a 2001 opinion in an
immigration case involving the issue, where Stevens touches upon what he believes the 'far more sensible view':
"The dissent reads into Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75 (1807), support for a
proposition that the Chief Justice did not endorse, either explicitly or implicitly. See post, at 1415. He did note
that "the first congress of the United States" acted under "the immediate influence" of the injunction provided by
the Suspension Clause when it gave "life and activity" to "this great constitutional privilege" in the Judiciary Act
of 1789, and that the writ could not be suspended until after the statute was enacted. 4 Cranch, at 95. That
statement, however, surely does not imply that Marshall believed the Framers had drafted a Clause that would
13 of 34
Page 51 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
proscribe a temporary abrogation of the writ, while permitting its permanent suspension. Indeed, Marshall's
comment expresses the far more sensible view that the Clause was intended to preclude any possibility that "the
privilege itself would be lost" by either the inaction or the action of Congress. See, e.g., ibid. (noting that the
Founders "must have felt, with peculiar force, the obligation" imposed by the Suspension Clause)."[84]
Justice Steven's assertion is backed up by sentiments found in the Federalist No. 84, which enshrines the right to
petition for habeas corpus as fundamental:
"The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF
NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provision in our Constitution, are perhaps greater
securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of
the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done,
were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite
and most formidable instruments of tyranny."[85]
The Constitution presupposes that courts in the United States will have the authority to issue the writ as they
historically did at common law. See, e.g., INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001); Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651,
666 (1996). The text of the Constitution provides that "[t]he privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." U.S. Const. art. 1,
9m cl.2. As some commentators have noted, "the text does not explicitly confer a right to habeas relief, but
merely sets forth when the Privilege of the Writ may be suspended".[86] [87]
As Robert Parry writes in the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel:
Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say
Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully.
Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of specificity in the
Constitution's granting of habeas corpus rights. Many of the legal features attributed to habeas
corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment....[79]
Support for use of torture

Alberto Gonzalez was a supporter and enabler of the Bush administration's policy of torture of detainees,
internally referred to as "Enhanced interrogation techniques".
Gonzalez oversaw President Bush's Office of Legal Counsel on August 1, 2002, at which time the OLC
produced the Bybee memo, a document that provided the legal framework by which previous interpretations of
the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention Against Torture were modified to expand
Presidential authority to enable so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques".[88][89]
The memo was produced in response to a specific CIA request for clarification of the standards of interrogation
under U.S. law, in the specific case of Abu Zabaydah, a man believed at the time to be a high-level Al-Qaeda
leader. In response, the Justice Department issued a classified August 1, 2002 memo[90] to the CIA from Jay
Bybee, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, and an August 1, 2002 legal opinion[91]
to Gonzales from Jay Bybee defining torture as an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental
pain or suffering.
14 of 34
Page 52 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
15 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Journalists including Jane Mayer, Joby Warrick and Peter Finn, and Alex Koppelman have reported the CIA was
already using these harsh tactics before the memo authorizing their use was written,[30][88][92][93][94] and that it
was used to provide after-the-fact legal support for harsh interrogation techniques.[95] A Department of Justice
2009 report regarding prisoner abuses reportedly stated the memos were prepared one month after Abu
Zubaydah had already been subjected to the specific techniques authorized in the August 1, 2002, memo.[96]
John Kiriakou stated in July 2009 that Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded in the early summer of 2002, months
before the August 1, 2002 memo was written.[97][98]
The memo described ten techniques which the interrogators wanted to use: "(1) attention grasp, (2) walling, (3)
facial hold, (4) facial slap (insult slap), (5) cramped confinement, (6) wall standing, (7) stress positions, (8) sleep
deprivation, (9) insects placed in a confinement box, and (10) the waterboard."[99] Many of the techniques were,
until then, generally considered illegal.[30][88][92][100][101][102] Many other techniques developed by the CIA
were held to constitute inhumane and degrading treatment and torture under the United Nations Convention
against Torture and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[100] As reported later, many of
these interrogation techniques were previously considered illegal under U.S. and international law and treaties at
the time of Abu Zubaydah's capture.[100][101] For instance, the United States had prosecuted Japanese military
officials after World War II and American soldiers after the Vietnam War for waterboarding.[101] Since 1930, the
United States had defined sleep deprivation as an illegal form of torture.[30] Many other techniques developed
by the CIA constitute inhuman and degrading treatment and torture under the United Nations Convention
against Torture, and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[100] These memoranda have been
the focus of considerable controversy, and were repudiated by President Barack Obama in early 2009.
NSA domestic eavesdropping program

In a December 2005 article[103][104] in The New York Times, it was revealed that the National Security Agency
(NSA) was eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants in cases where (i) NSA intelligence agents had
reason to believe at least one party to the call was a member of al Qaeda or a group affiliated with al Qaeda, and
(ii) the call was international.[105] The New York Times acknowledged that the activities had been classified, and
that it had disclosed the activities over the Administration's objections. As such, Attorney General Gonzales
threatened The Times with prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917,[106] since knowing publication of
classified information is a federal crime. Gonzales raised the possibility that New York Times journalists could be
prosecuted for publishing classified information based on the outcome of the criminal investigation underway
into leaks to the Times of data about the National Security Agency's surveillance of terrorist-related calls
between the United States and abroad. He said, "I understand very much the role that the press plays in our
society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to protect and respect...." As for the Times, he said,
"As we do in every case, it's a case-by-case evaluation about what the evidence shows us, our interpretation of
the law. We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity."[107]
The publication led to an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) over the role of
Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers in giving legal advice to support various intelligence collection activities.
OPR is responsible for investigating allegations of professional misconduct by DOJ attorneys. The objective of
OPR is to ensure that DOJ attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest professional
standards.[108]
The Bush Administration and Attorney General Gonzales believed that OPR did not have the authority to
investigate Gonzales' role as White House Counsel in connection with certain intelligence activities authorized
by the President. In response to suggestions that Gonzales blocked the investigation or that the President blocked
the investigation to protect Gonzales, Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling informed Chairman John
Page 53 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
16 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Conyers on March 22, 2007, that "the President made the decision not to grant the requested security clearances
to" OPR staff. Judge Gonzales "was not told he was the subject or target of the OPR investigation, nor did he
believe himself to be" Judge Gonzales "did not ask the President to shut down or otherwise impede the OPR
investigation". Judge Gonzales "recommended to the President that OPR be granted security clearance."[109]
In a letter to the Senate dated August 1, 2007, Gonzales disclosed that shortly after the September 11 attacks, the
President authorized the NSA, under a single Presidential Authorization, to engage in a number of intelligence
activities, which would later be collectively described as the "President's Surveillance Program" (PSP) by the
DOJ Inspector General, Glenn A. Fine.[110] Some of these authorized activities were described as the "Terrorist
Surveillance Program" (TSP) by President Bush, in an address to the nation on December 16, 2005. As the
August 1 letter indicates the dispute between the President and James Comey that led to the hospital visit was
not over TSP, it concerned other classified intelligence activities that are part of PSP and have not been
disclosed. He defended his authorization of the program, asserting "...if you are talking with al Qaeda, we want
to know why." In his letter, Gonzales wrote the Senate Judiciary Committee that he defined TSP as the program
the President publicly confirmed, a program that targets communications where one party is outside the United
States, and as to which the government had reason to believe at least one party to the communication is a
member of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization.[111] Indeed, prior to the 2007 letter, Gonzales
provided the same definition of TSP in several public appearances[112][113][114][115] leading up to a hearing in
Congress on February 6, 2006.[116]
In March 2004, the TSP operations, (code-named Stellar Wind,[117]) became the focal point for a dispute
between the White House and then-acting-Attorney-General James B. Comey, resulting in a dramatic, late-night
meeting between Gonzales, Comey, the bedridden AG John Ashcroft, and other DOJ officials, in a George
Washington University Hospital room. According to initial statements by Gonzales, the disagreement was not
over TSP; rather, he claimed it concerned other classified intelligence activities which fell under the PSP, which
had not been disclosed. However, Comey contended that the incident, (which had culminated in a heated phone
conversation following the hospital visit,) had indeed been over the activities comprising the TSP. Through a
spokesperson, Gonzales later denied his original assertion that the dispute was over TSP, claiming that he had
misspoken. The controversy over these conflicting statements led Senator Charles Schumer to request
appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate if Gonzales had committed perjury.[118]
In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 15, 2007, former Deputy Attorney General Comey was
asked to recall the events of the evening of March 10, 2004, when, (at the behest of President Bush,[119][120])
Gonzales and Bush's then-chief-of-staff Andrew H. Card Jr. sought to bypass Comey's refusal to authorize "a
particular classified program,"[121] by appealing to the ailing John Ashcroft in a visit to his hospital bedside, as
he recovered from surgery for pancreatitis. According to Comey, he had consulted with AG Ashcroft prior to his
hospitalization and, (though Ashcroft had previously signed off on the program many times in previous years,)
the two of them came to agree that there had arisen legitimate concerns, which interfered with the ability of the
Attorney General's office, "to certify (the program's) legality, which was our obligation for the program to be
renewed."[121] More than a week later, Comey continued, Ashcroft had become extremely ill and his wife had
forbidden any visitors to his hospital room, so when he and the other officials met at his bedside on March 10,
he was very concerned about General Ashcroft's ability to think clearly about the issue at hand.
In walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the
bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly, and then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why
they were there, to seek his approval...I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just
witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the
attorney general because they had been transferred to me.[122]
Page 54 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
17 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Later testimony from Gonzales and others confirmed that Ashcroft did not seem disoriented, but in fact seemed
lucid enough to describe to Card and Gonzales, in great detail, the basis of the Department's legal arguments,
and even to complain about clearance decisions by the President relative to the TSP. Comey also testified that
there was significant dissent among top law enforcement officers over the program, although he did not
specifically identify it in the hearing. Moreover, in light of the incident at the hospital, "top Justice Department
officials were prepared to resign over it."[122]
Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, corroborates many of
the details of Comey's Senate testimony regarding the March 10, 2004 hospital room visit, in a preview of his
book "The Terror Presidency" which was to be published in Fall 2007. In the September 9, 2007 issue of The
New York Times Magazine Jeffrey Rosen reports on an extended interview he had with Goldsmith, who was also
in the hospital room that night.[123]
As he recalled it to me, Goldsmith received a call in the evening from his deputy, Philbin, telling
him to go to the George Washington University Hospital immediately, since Gonzales and Card
were on the way there. Goldsmith raced to the hospital, double-parked outside and walked into a
dark room. Ashcroft lay with a bright light shining on him and tubes and wires coming out of his
body.
Suddenly, Gonzales and Card came in the room and announced that they were there in
connection with the classified program. "Ashcroft, who looked like he was near death, sort of
puffed up his chest," Goldsmith recalls. "All of a sudden, energy and color came into his face,
and he said that he didn't appreciate them coming to visit him under those circumstances, that he
had concerns about the matter they were asking about and that, in any event, he wasn't the
attorney general at the moment; Jim Comey was. He actually gave a two-minute speech, and I
was sure at the end of it he was going to die. It was the most amazing scene I've ever witnessed."
After a bit of silence, Goldsmith told me, Gonzales thanked Ashcroft, and he and Card walked
out of the room. "At that moment," Goldsmith recalled, "Mrs. Ashcroft, who obviously couldn't
believe what she saw happening to her sick husband, looked at Gonzales and Card as they
walked out of the room and stuck her tongue out at them. She had no idea what we were
discussing, but this sweet-looking woman sticking out her tongue was the ultimate expression of
disapproval. It captured the feeling in the room perfectly."
Comey also testified that Ashcroft "expressed himself in very strong terms."[121] Goldsmith testified that
Ashcroft spoke at length about the legal issue. "Attorney General Ashcroft [gave] a couple of minutes' speech
in which he said that he. shared the Justice department's concerns."[124] Although he was not present for the
conversation between Gonzales and Ashcroft, FBI Director Bob Mueller testified, "Ashcroft complained to
Judge Gonzales about White House compartmentalization rules preventing Ashcroft from getting the advice he
needed."[125] On July 24, 2007, Gonzales testified that he and Card were also concerned about Ashcroft's
competency. "Obviously there was concern about General Ashcroft's condition. And we would not have sought
nor did we intend to get any approval from General Ashcroft if in fact he wasn't fully competent to make the
decision."[126] In response to a question from Senator Hatch, Gonzales continued, "Obviously we were
concerned about the condition of General Ashcroft. We obviously knew he had been ill and had surgery. And we
never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent. When we got there, I will
just say that Mr. Ashcroft did most of the talking. We were there maybe five minutes five to six minutes. Mr.
Ashcroft talked about the legal issues in a lucid form, as I've heard him talk about legal issues in the White
House.[127] During the July 24 hearing, Gonzales' testimony lasted for almost four hours before the Senate
Page 55 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Judiciary Committee. He appeared to contradict the earlier statements made by James Comey regarding the
hospital room meeting with John Ashcroft.
Mr. Comey's testimony about the hospital visit was about other intelligence activities
disagreement over other intelligence activities. That's how we'd clarify it.[122]
Senator Chuck Schumer confronted Gonzales over this statement: "That is not what Mr. Comey says; that is not
what the people in the room say." Gonzales responded "That's how we clarify it."[122] However, the DOJ
Inspector General's report concluded that there was nothing false or intentionally misleading in Gonzales'
account.
The Inspector General also concluded that the dispute between the White House and the DOJ concerned "Other
Intelligence Activities," which, though they had been implemented through the same Presidential Authorization,
were not the same as the communications interception activities that the President publicly identified as the
Terrorist Surveillance Program.[128] The DOJ Inspector General agreed with Gonzales noting in his report that
the "dispute-which resulted in the visit to Attorney General Ashcroft's hospital room by Gonzales and Card and
brought several senior DOJ and FBI officials to the brink of resignations concerned certain of the Other
Intelligence Activities that were different from the communication interception activities that the President later
publicly acknowledged as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, but that had been implemented through the same
Presidential Authorization.[129] As the IG report confirms, the dispute involved Other Intelligence Activities, it
was not about TSP.[130]
The response to Gonzales's testimony by those Senators serving on both the Judiciary and Intelligence
Committees was one of disbelief. Russ Feingold, who is a member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence
committees, said, "I believe your testimony is misleading at best," which Sheldon Whitehousealso a member
of both committeesconcurred with, saying, "I have exactly the same perception." Chuck Schumer said
Gonzales was "not being straightforward" with the committee. Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy
said, "I just don't trust you," and urged Gonzales to carefully review his testimony. The ranking Republican on
the Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, said to Gonzales, "Your credibility has been breached to the point of
being actionable." Leahy and Specter's comments were interpreted as warnings that Gonzales might have been
perjuring himself. After the meeting, Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller said Gonzales was being
"untruthful." Rockefeller's sentiments were echoed by Jane Harman, a senior member of the House Intelligence
Committee, who accused Gonzales of "selectively declassifying information to defend his own conduct."[131]
On July 26, 2007, the Associated Press obtained a four-page memorandum from the office of former Director of
National Intelligence John D. Negroponte dated May 17, 2006, which appeared to contradict Gonzales's
testimony the previous day regarding the subject of a March 10, 2004 emergency Congressional briefing which
preceded his hospital room meeting with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, James B. Comey and former
White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr..[132] However, there is no contradiction as the July 1, 2009 IG
report confirms. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, the President authorized a number of intelligence
activities reported by the IG on the President's Surveillance Program (PSP). One set of activities were TSP, but
the dispute was about certain of the Other Intelligence Activities. The IG report is clear on p. 37 that the TSP
"was not the subject of the hospital room confrontation or the threatened resignations." P. 36 of the Inspector
General report goes on to say that the White House had a major disagreement related to PSP. The dispute which
resulted in the visit to Attorney General Ashcroft's hospital room by Gonzales and Card and brought several
senior DOJ and FBI officials to the brink of resignation-concerned certain of the Other Intelligence Activities
that were different from the communications interception activities that the President later publicly
acknowledged as the TSP, but that had been implemented through the same President Authorizations.[133]
18 of 34
Page 56 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
On that same day, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller III also seemed to dispute
the accuracy of Gonzales's Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of the previous day regarding the events of
March 10, 2004 in his own sworn testimony on that subject before the House Judiciary Committee.[134]
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) asked Mueller "Did you have an opportunity to talk to General Ashcroft, or did
he discuss what was discussed in the meeting with Attorney General Gonzales and the chief of staff?" He replied
"I did have a brief discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft." Lee went on to ask "I guess we use [the phrase]
TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program], we use warrantless wiretapping. So would I be comfortable in saying that
those were the items that were part of the discussion?" He responded "It wasthe discussion was on a
nationalan NSA program that has been much discussed, yes."[122]
On Thursday, August 16, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee released the heavily-redacted notes[125] of FBI
Director Robert S. Mueller III regarding the Justice Department and White House deliberations of March, 2004
which included the March 10, 2004 hospital-room visit of Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr. on John Ashcroft in
the presence of then-acting Attorney General James B. Comey. The notes list 26 meetings and phone
conversations over three weeksfrom March 1 to March 23during a debate that reportedly almost led to mass
resignations at the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. [135]
On July 26, 2007 a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement, Senators Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Russ
Feingold and Sheldon Whitehouse urged that an independent counsel be appointed to investigate whether
Gonzales had perjured himself in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the previous day. "We
ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to
determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony
before Congress," the letter read in part.[136] According to the July 10, 2009 DOJ Inspector General Unclassified
Report on the President's Surveillance Program, Gonzales did not intend to mislead Congress. There was no
finding of perjury or other criminal wrongdoing by Gonzales[137]
On Wednesday, June 27, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to the United States
Department of Justice, the White House, and Vice President Dick Cheney seeking internal documents regarding
the program's legality and details of the NSA's cooperative agreements with private telecommunications
corporations. In addition to the subpoenas, committee chairman Patrick Leahy sent Gonzales a letter about
possible false statements made under oath by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh during his
confirmation hearings before the committee the previous year.[138] In an August 17, 2007 reply letter to Leahy
asking for an extension of the August 20 deadline [139] for compliance, White House counsel Fred Fielding
argued that the subpoenas called for the production of "extraordinarily sensitive national security information,"
and he said much of the informationif not allcould be subject to a claim of executive privilege. [140] On
August 20, 2007, Fielding wrote to Leahy that the White House needed yet more time to respond to the
subpoenas, which prompted Leahy to reply that the Senate may consider a contempt of Congress citation when it
returns from its August recess.[141]
On July 27, 2007, both White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino
defended Gonzales's Senate Judiciary Committee testimony regarding the events of March 10, 2004, saying that
it did not contradict the sworn House Judiciary Committee account of FBI director Robert S. Mueller III,
because Gonzales had been constrained in what he could say because there was a danger he would divulge
classified material.[142] Lee Casey, a former Justice Department lawyer during the Ronald Reagan and George
H. W. Bush administrations, told The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer that it is likely that the apparent discrepancy
can be traced to the fact that there are two separate Domestic Surveillance programs. "The program that was
leaked in December 2005 is the Comey program. It is not the program that was discussed in the evening when
they went to Attorney General Ashcroft's hospital room. That program we know almost nothing about. We can
19 of 34
Page 57 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
speculate about it. The program about which he said there was no dispute is a program that was created after
the original program died, when Mr. Comey refused to reauthorize it, in March 2004. Mr. Comey then
essentially redid the program to suit his legal concerns. And about that program, there was no dispute. There was
clearly a dispute about the earlier form or version of the program. The attorney general has not talked about that
program. He refers to it as "other intelligence activities" because it is, in fact, still classified."[122]
On Tuesday, August 28, 2007one day after Gonzales announced his resignation as Attorney General effective
September 17Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy indicated that it would not affect ongoing
investigations by his committee. "I intend to get answers to these questions no matter how long it takes," Leahy
said, suggesting that Gonzales could face subpoenas from the committee for testimony or evidence long after
leaving the administration. "You'll notice that we've had people subpoenaed even though they've resigned from
the White House," Leahy said, referring to Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and Karl Rove,
who resigned in August 2007 as the president's top political aide. "They're still under subpoena. They still face
contempt if they don't appear."[143] Gonzales testified voluntarily to Congress and provided interviews to the
Inspector General on numerous occasions. He ordered full cooperation by all Department of Justice employees
with ongoing investigations.
On Thursday, August 30, 2007, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine disclosed in a letter to the
Senate Judiciary Committee that as part of a previously ongoing investigation, his office is looking into whether
Gonzales made statements to Congress that were "intentionally false, misleading, or inappropriate," both about
the firing of federal prosecutors and about the terrorist-surveillance program, as committee chairman Patrick
Leahy had asked him to do in an August 16, 2007 letter. Fine's letter to Leahy said that his office "has ongoing
investigations that relate to most of the subjects addressed by the attorney general's testimony that you
identified." Fine said that his office is conducting a particular review "relating to the terrorist-surveillance
program, as well as a follow-up review of the use of national security letters," which investigators use to obtain
information on e-mail messages, telephone calls and other records from private companies without court
approval.[144] Fine concluded his investigation and found that Gonzales did not intend to mislead Congress.[145]
It has been reported that a person involved in the incident of March 10, 2004 hospital room meeting with John
Ashcroft has said that much of the confusion and conflicting testimony that occurred about intelligence activities
was because certain programs were so classified that they were impossible to speak about clearly.[146] The DOJ
Inspector General recognized that Gonzales was in the difficult position of testifying before the Senate Judiciary
Committee about a highly classified program in an open forum[147] On July 31, 2007, Director of National
Intelligence J. Michael McConnell confirmed, in a letter to Senator Specter, that the activities publicly referred
to "as the TSP did not exhaust the activities subject to periodic authorization by the President.[148] Gonzales was
then able to explain publicly, on August 1, 2007, that while TSP "was an extraordinary activity that presented
novel and difficult issues and was, as [he understood], the subject of intense deliberations within the
Department," the aspect of Mr. Comey's advise that prompted the Gang of Eight meeting on March 10, 2004,
was not about TSP, but was about another or other aspects of the intelligence activities in question, which
activities remain classified.[149] Comey himself acknowledged that the nature of the disagreement at issue on
March 10, 2004, is "a very complicated matter", but he declined to discuss in a public setting.[150] Professor Jack
Goldsmith appears to acknowledge that there is a difference between TSP and other classified intelligence
activities that prompted the March 10, 2004 Gang of Eight meeting and visit to General Ashcroft's hospital
room.[151]
Objectivity
Gonzales has had a long relationship with former president George W. Bush. Gonzales served as a general
counsel when Bush was the governor of Texas. Such relationship made critics question whether he would
20 of 34
Page 58 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
21 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
maintain independence in his administration of the U.S. Department of Justice.[152][153] Gonzales has been
called Bush's "yes man." Even though the advice given by Gonzales was based and supported by other lawyers,
specifically the Department of Justice, charged by statute to provide legal advice to the President, Critics claim
that he gave only the legal advice Bush wanted and questioned Gonzales's ethics and professional conduct.
[154][155] "To his backers, Gonzales is a quiet, hardworking attorney general notable for his open management
style and his commitment to the administration of justice and to the war on terrorism.[156]
One publication reported, "Gonzales contends that his friendship with Bush makes him a better advocate for the
rule of law within the executive branch." My responsibilities is to ensure that the laws are enforced, that
everyone in the country receives justice under the lawindependent of my relationship with the White House,
independent of my relationship with the President of the United States," he told National Journal"[156] However,
another report states that Gonzales has ". . . a long history of dogged obedience to the President, which often has
come at the cost of institutional independence and adherence to the rule of law."[155]
As a White House counsel, Gonzales signed a controversial memorandum in January 2002 to the president
which argued that the limitations on the questioning of prisoners under the Geneva Conventions were "obsolete"
when it deals with terrorism.[157][158]
The memo also states this new paradigm of non-nation states who fight in violation of the laws of war places a
premium on getting information and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on
questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be
afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e. advances of monthly pay, athletic uniforms, and
scientific instruments)." [159]
Resignation
Demand
A number of members of both houses of Congress publicly said Gonzales should resign, or be fired by Bush.
Calls for his ousting intensified after his testimony on April 19, 2007. But the President gave Gonzales a strong
vote of confidence saying, "This is an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence." The President said
that Gonzales's testimony "increased my confidence" in his ability to lead the Justice Department. Separately, a
White House spokeswoman said, "He's staying".[160]
On May 24, 2007, Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Sheldon Whitehouse
(D-RI) of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced the Democrats' proposed no-confidence resolution to vote
on whether "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and the American
People." [161] (The vote would have had no legal effect, but was designed to persuade Gonzales to depart or
President Bush to seek a new attorney general.) A similar resolution was introduced in the House by Rep. Adam
Schiff (D-CA).[162]
On June 11, 2007 a Senate vote on cloture to end debate on the resolution failed (60 votes are required for
cloture). The vote was 53 to 38 with 7 not voting and 1 voting "present" (one senate seat was vacant). Seven
Republicans, John E. Sununu, Chuck Hagel, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith and
Norm Coleman voted to end debate; Independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman voted against ending debate. No
Democrat voted against the motion. Not voting: Biden (D-DE), Brownback (R-KS), Coburn (R-OK), Dodd
(D-CT), Johnson (D-SD), McCain (R-AZ), Obama (D-IL). Stevens (R-AK) voted "present."[163][164]
Page 59 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
22 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
University of Missouri law professor Frank Bowman[165] has observed that Congress has the power to impeach
Gonzales if he willfully lied or withheld information from Congress during his testimony about the dismissal of
U.S. Attorneys.[166]
On July 30, 2007, MSNBC reported that Rep. Jay Inslee announced that he would introduce a bill the following
day that would require the House Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment investigation against Gonzales.
[167][168] There were many, however, who supported Gonzales. One commentator wrote, "Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales shouldn't go quietly. In fact, he shouldn't go at all.[169] The Latino Coalition issued a press
statement in March 2007 announcing their continued and unwavering support of Alberto Gonzales saying, "we
strongly oppose what is nothing but patently political calls for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. He has been,
and continues to be, a leading example to all in the Hispanic community of what we can accomplish through
hard work and by keeping true to our dreams."[170] The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association wrote
expressing support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, "Attorney General Gonzales is a man held in high
regard by the men and women of Federal law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to keep our
nation safe. He is a strong law enforcement leader who is willing to listen to those of us out on the street every
day serving and protection our nation. Mr. President, I urge you to convince Attorney General Gonzales to
remain in his current position as our nation's chief law enforcement officer. Our nation and the men and women
who carry the badge and the gun need his leadership."[171]
Announcement
On August 26, 2007, Gonzales submitted his resignation as Attorney
General with an effective date of September 17, 2007.[210] In a statement
on August 27, Gonzales thanked the President for the opportunity to be
of service to his country, giving no indication of either the reasons for his
resignation or his future plans. Later that day, President Bush praised
Gonzales for his service, reciting the numerous positions in Texas
government, and later, the government of the United States, to which
Bush had appointed Gonzales. Bush attributed the resignation to
Gonzales's name having been "dragged through the mud" for "political
reasons".[210] Senators Schumer (D-NY), Feinstein (D-CA), and Specter
(R-PA) replied that the resignation was entirely attributable to the
excessive politicization of the Attorney General's office by Gonzales,
whose credibility with Congress, they asserted, was nonexistent.
Gonzales and his wife Rebecca, with

George W. Bush and Laura Bush at
the Prairie Chapel Ranch on August
26, 2007, the day that Gonzales's
resignation was accepted.
Successor
On September 17, 2007, President Bush announced the nomination of ex-Judge Michael B. Mukasey to serve as
Gonzales's successor. Bush also announced a revised appointment for acting Attorney General: Paul Clement
served for 24 hours and returned to his position as Solicitor General; the departing Assistant Attorney General of
the Civil Division, Peter Keisler was persuaded to stay on, and was appointed acting Attorney General effective
September 18, 2007.[211]
After resignation
Investigations
Soon after departure from the DOJ in September 2007, continuing inquiries by Congress and the Justice
Page 60 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Department led Gonzales to hire a criminal-defense lawyer George J. Terwilliger III, partner at White & Case,
and former deputy attorney general under former president George H. W. Bush. Terwiliger was on the
Republican law team involved in Florida presidential election recount battle of 2000.[212]
On October 19, 2007, John McKay, the former U.S. Attorney for Washington's Western District, told The
(Spokane) Spokesman-Review that Inspector General Glenn A. Fine may recommend criminal charges against
Gonzales.[213] The Inspector General did not recommend criminal charges against Gonzales. To the contrary, the
Inspector General found no criminal wrongdoing and no perjury.[214]
On November 15, 2007, The Washington Post reported that supporters of Gonzales had created a trust fund to
help pay for his legal expenses, which were mounting as the Justice Department Inspector General's office
continued to investigate whether Gonzales committed perjury or improperly tampered with a congressional
witness.[215] The Inspector General determined that Gonzales did not commit perjury or improperly tamper with
a congressional witness.[214]
On September 2, 2008, the Inspector General found that Gonzales had stored classified documents in an insecure
fashion, at his home and insufficiently secure safes at work.[216] The Inspector General investigation found no
evidence showing that there was any unauthorized disclosure of classified information resulting from his
mishandling and storage of the materials in question, and the IG did not make a referral to the National Security
Division for violation of a criminal statute.[217]
Some members of Congress criticized Gonzales for selectively declassifying some of this information for
political purposes.[216] The Justice Department declined to press criminal charges.[216] because there was no
evidence of intent and no referral by the IG of criminal wrongdoing.
Later career
In April 2008, The New York Times reported that Gonzales was having difficulty securing a new job, unusual for
a former Attorney General.[218] Gonzales had a mediation and consulting practice in Austin, TX and taught at
Texas Tech. In October 2011, Belmont University College of Law announced that Gonzales would fill the Doyle
Rogers Distinguished Chair of Law.[219] Gonzalez also joined the Nashville law firm of Waller Lansden Dortch
& Davis as Of Counsel.[220]
Gonzales gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal on December 31, 2008, in which he discussed the effect
that controversies in his Bush Administration roles had had on his career and public perception.[221][222] He
stated:
For some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree
with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror.[222][223]
Since leaving public office he has appeared on a number of television and radio news shows, including The
Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, to discuss the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court,[224]
Larry King Live to discuss the challenges of immigration,[225] and Geraldo at Large to discuss terrorism related
issues.[226] He has given numerous radio interviews on shows such as NPR's Tell Me More, covering such topics
as Guantanamo Bay and Supreme Court nominations.[227] Additionally, he has written opinion pieces for The
Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, covering issues ranging from immigration to sexual
23 of 34
Page 61 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
predators.[228] He stated an intention to write a book about his roles, with the intention of publishing the book
"for my sons, so at least they know the story." No publishing company had agreed to promote the book at the
time of the interview.[223]
Gonzales was featured in the 2008 Academy Award-winning documentary Taxi to the Dark Side.[229]
Texas Tech University

In 2009, Texas Tech University System hired Gonzales. He acted as the diversity recruiter for both Texas Tech
University and Angelo State University.[230] Additionally, at Texas Tech, he taught a political science "special
topics" course dealing with contemporary issues in the executive branch,[231] and a graduate level course to
students pursuing a master's degree in public administration. He began the new job on August 1, 2009.[232] After
the announcement, more than 40 professors at Texas Tech signed a petition opposing the hiring.[233] Texas Tech
Chancellor Kent Hance said Gonzales has generated interest in the University by recruiting outside of Lubbock
and through his reputation in the news. "I had a young man come up to me Monday in a restaurant and he said,
"I'm in Judge Gonzales's class, and it's the best class I've ever taken. Thank you for providing him to the
community." Hance said.[234]
Grand jury indictment

In November 2008 Gonzales was indicted by a grand jury in Willacy County in Texas. He was accused of
stopping an investigation into abuses at the Willacy Detention Center, a federal detention center. Vice president
Dick Cheney and other elected officials were also indicted.[235] A judge dismissed the indictments and chastised
the Willacy County district attorney, Juan Angel Gonzales, who brought the case.[236] The district attorney
himself had been under indictment for more than a year and a half before the judge dismissed the indictment.
The district attorney left office after losing in a Democratic primary in March 2008.[237] All charges were
dropped after further investigation.[238]
International investigation
On November 14, 2006, invoking universal jurisdiction, legal proceedings were started in Germany against
Gonzales for his alleged involvement under the command responsibility of prisoner abuse by writing the
controversial legal opinions.[239] On April 27, 2007, Germany's Federal Prosecutor announced she would not
proceed with an investigation. In November 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the decision. On April 21, 2009, the
Stuttgart Regional Appeals Court dismissed the appeal.
On March 28, 2009, a Spanish court, headed by Baltasar Garzn, the judge who ordered the arrest of former
Chilean President Augusto Pinochet, announced it would begin an investigation into whether or not Gonzales,
and five other former Bush Justice and Defense officials violated international law by providing the Bush
Administration a legal framework and basis for the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Garzn said that it
was "highly probable" the matter would go to court and that arrest warrants would be issued. Also named in the
Spanish court's investigation are John Yoo, Douglas Feith, William Haynes II, Jay Bybee, and David Addington.
[240][241] In April 2010, on the advice of the Spanish Attorney General Cndido Conde-Pumpido, who believes
that an American tribunal should judge the case (or dismiss it) before a Spanish Court ever thinks about
becoming involved, prosecutors recommended that Judge Garzon should drop his investigation. As CNN
reported, Mr. Conde-Pumpido told reporters that Judge Garzon's plan threatened to turn the court "into a toy in
the hands of people who are trying to do a political action".[242]
24 of 34
Page 62 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
25 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Texas Supreme Court opinions

This is a list of opinions in which Alberto Gonzales wrote the majority court opinion, wrote a concurring
opinion, or wrote a dissent. Cases in which he joined in an opinion written by another justice are not included. A
justice "writes" an opinion if the justice has primary responsibility for the opinion. Justices are assisted by a law
clerk who may play an important role in the actual analysis of legal issues and drafting of the opinion. The Texas
Supreme Court issued 84 opinions during Gonzales's tenure on the court, according to LexisNexis.
Majority opinions
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, 996 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. 1999).
Texas Farmers Insurance Company v. Murphy, 996 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. 1999).
Mid-Century Insurance Company v. Kidd, 997 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. 1999).
General Motors Corporation v. Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1999).
In re Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 998 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1999).
Mallios v. Baker, 11 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. 2000).
Gulf Insurance Company v. Burns Motors, 22 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2000).
Southwestern Refining Co. v. Bernal, 22 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. 2000).
Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 24 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. 2000).
City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich, 29 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. 2000).
Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Financial Review Services, Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2000).
Texas Department of Transportation v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. 2000).
Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp., 35 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. 2000).
John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Dewhurst, 44 Tex. Sup. J. 268 (2000),
withdrawn.[243]
Concurring opinions
In re Dallas Morning News, 10 S.W.3d 298 (Tex. 1999).
Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2000).
In re Jane Doe 3, 19 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2000).
In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000). (This case is popularly referred to as "In re Jane Doe 5".)
Grapevine Excavation, Inc. v. Maryland Lloyds, 35 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2000).
Partial dissent, partial concurrence

Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema, & Reed, 22 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. 2000)
See also
George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates
References
1. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, by Lisa Tucker McElroy, 2006, Millbrook Press
2. "The Gonzales Resignation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08
Page 63 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
/27/AR2007082700372_2.html)," Washington Post (August 27, 2007).

3. Shenon, Philip; Johnston, David (August 28, 2007). "A Defender of Bush's Power, Gonzales Resigns". The New York
Times.
4. "Alberto R. Gonzales: Targeting the Lone Star State (http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2624151)," USA Today
(August 7, 2013).
5. New York Times "What the Courts Didn't Say" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/what-the-court-didntsay.html?_r=0) July 18, 2013
6. Fox News "Has Holder's Ability to Lead Been Irrecoverably Damaged?" (http://video.foxnews.com
/v/2439609602001/has-holders-ability-to-lead-been-irrecoverably-damaged/) June 6, 2013
7. CNN "Alberto Gonzales on Race and the Law" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbc7wqLkGwc) on YouTube
July 20, 2013
8. Newsmax's 50 Most Influential Latino Republicans (http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/influential-latinorepublicans-list/2016/02/24/id/715868/)
9. Alberto Gonzales (June 3, 2005). Living the American Dream. Interview with Academy of Achievement. New York
City. Archived from the original on April 3, 2007. Retrieved May 6, 2007.
10. https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VDXR-H9V
11. Zaleski, Katharine (May 17, 2006). "Alberto Gonzales Admits His Grandparents May Have Been Illegal Immigrants
From Mexico..". The Huffington Post. Retrieved April 24, 2007.
12. "Profile: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales". ABC News. 2005-01-026. Archived from the original on April 24,
2009. Retrieved March 12, 2009. Check date values in: |date= (help)
13. Evans, Jennifer. "Alum Gonzales to Give Grads Send-off". Rice University. Archived from the original on June 12,
2010. Retrieved August 19, 2009.
14. Kaplan, Mitch. "An Interview with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales". Sallyport. Rice University. Archived from
the original on March 26, 2009. Retrieved August 21, 2009.
15. Secretary of State of Texas official tabulation for 2000 Primary Election and General Election
16. Academy of Achievement Website: http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/pagegen/newsletter/2005/
17. "George W. Bush arrest record"., The Smoking Gun.
18. Texas Monthly, "The Outsider", July 2010
19. Washington Post, "Gonzales's Clemency Memos Criticized", Page A04, January 6, 2005
20. "The Texas Clemency Memos".
21. "White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales's Texas Execution Memos: How They Reflect on the President, And May
Affect Gonzales's Supreme Court Chances".
22. Letter from Pete Wassdorf to The Atlantic Monthly, Letters to the Editor, 2003
23. "White House Blocks Release of Reagan-Era Presidential Records". Retrieved May 3, 2011.
24. "Opinion of the D.C. District Court" (PDF). October 1, 2007. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 8, 2011.
Retrieved May 2, 2011.
25. Washington Post, May 19, 2003, "Counsel to Assertive Presidency", by Mike Allen
26. Director's Award, 2007, Central Intelligence Agency
27. House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, visit to Guantanamo Bay, Second Report of Session 200607, page
27, paragraph 85.
28. "Decision Re Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with Al Qaeda and the
Taliban, Memorandum for the President". Archived from the original on August 25, 2010.
29. Letter dated February 1, 2008 from Attorney General John Ashcroft to the President of the United States.
30. Mayer, Jane, "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals",
2008. p. 199
31. Memorandum For John A. Rizzo, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, Re: Application for
18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A to Certain Techniques That May be Used In The Interrogation of a High Value al Qaeda
Detainee, May 10, 2005
32. David Johnston (October 4, 2007). "Congress Seeks Justice Dept. Documents on Interrogation". The New York Times.
Archived from the original on May 16, 2013. Retrieved October 4, 2007.
33. Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 USC 948, and Military Commissions Act of 2009
34. Obama: U.S. will not torture politics White House msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28574408
/ns/politics-white_house/)
35. Ensuring Lawful Interrogations | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office
/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/)
26 of 34
Page 64 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
27 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
36. Los Angeles Times, Court Lets Cheney Keep Talks Secret, May 11, 2005
37. transcript Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing on USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Federal News Service,
Monday, July 9, 2007
38. Texas Monthly, The Outsider by Mimi Swartz, July 2010
39. Bumiller, Elisabeth; Lewis, Neil A. (November 12, 2004). "Choice of Gonzales May Blaze a Trail for the High
Court". The New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
40. "On the Nomination (Confirmation Alberto R. Gonzales to be Attorney General)". United States Senate, Roll Call
Votes 109th Congress, 1st Session.
41. " "Do As We Say, Not As We Do" Says the Right Wing on Judicial Nominees". Archived from the original on
February 20, 2008.
42. "No to Justice Gonzales".
43. "The Holy War Begins: Bush must choose between the big tent or the revival tent". Archived from the original on July
8, 2005.
44. HISPANIC Magazine, December 2005, January 2006, p.28
45. USA Today, "Gonzales concentrates outrage on child abuse", December 14, 2006
46. Statement of President George W. Bush, The White House, August 27, 2007
47. Hispanic Magazine, December 2005/January 2006, p.28
48. "A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Use of National Security Letters" (PDF). US Department of
Justice, Office of the Inspector General. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 19, 2007. Retrieved April 12, 2007.
49. Dahlia Lithwick (July 10, 2007). "Hardly Working: How Alberto Gonzales's incompetence became a defense for his
wrongdoing". Slate Magazine.
50. 28 U.S.C. 541
51. Testimony by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before Senate Judiciary Committee, April 19, 2007
52. "Plan for Replacing Certain United States Attorneys" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 8, 2008.
53. "Justice Department Announces Appointment of J. Timothy Griffin as Interim United States Attorney" (PDF). Press
Release. Department of Justice. December 15, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 9, 2007. Retrieved
May 28, 2007.
54. Waas, Murray (May 10, 2007). "Administration Withheld E-Mails About Rove". National Journal. National Journal
Group. Archived from the original on May 22, 2007. Retrieved May 28, 2007.
55. Q & A from Committee for Bud Cummins (http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Chair-Cummins070430.pdf) (no
date). United States House Committee on the Judiciary Retrieved May 18, 2007. (Written responses by Bud Cummins
to committee interrogatories, post-hearing.) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080626074157/http:
//judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Chair-Cummins070430.pdf) June 26, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
56. See Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy for full details.
57. Johnston, David (February 25, 2007). "Reviews of 6 fired attorneys positive". Washington Post. Retrieved March 7,
2006.
58. Will Moschella, House Judiciary Committee Testimony, March 6, 2007, at 8 & 15; Monica Goodling, House Judiciary
Committee Testimony, May 23, 2007, at 14
59. Alberto Gonzales, Senate Judiciary Committee Testimony, April 29, 2007 at 27
60. "Transcript of Media Availability With Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales". PRNewswire-USNewswire. March
13, 2007. Archived from the original on September 29, 2007. Retrieved August 28, 2007. "incomplete information,
was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress"
61. "Prosecutor Firings Are My BadGonzales". AP. March 13, 2007. Archived from the original on October 15, 2007.
62. Jakes Jordan, Lara (March 26, 2007). "White House Backs AG As Support Wanes". San Francisco Chronicle.
Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2008-06-24. Retrieved September 1, 2007.
63. Jan Crawford Greenburg and Ariane de Vogue (April 16, 2007). "Gonzales Contradicts His Own Testimony". ABC
News. Retrieved September 3, 2007.
64. Johnson, Kevin (April 20, 2007). "Gonzales seeks GOP support". USA Today.
65. CQ Transcripts Wire (April 19, 2007). "Gonzales Testifies Before Senate Panel, Part II". The Washington Post.
66. Schumer 4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Iezc2kIcw) on YouTube
67. U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, "An
Investigation Into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006", September 2008
68. The Wall Street Journal, Review & Outlook, "General Piata's Exoneration, July 23, 2010
69. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, "An
Investigation Into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006", September 2008. See also Letter dated July 21, 2010
Page 65 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
28 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to Chairman John Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee
regarding the investigation by Assistant United States Attorney Nora R. Dannehy.)
70. IG Report at p 347
71. Alberto Gonzales, Senate Judiciary Committee Testimony, April 19, 2007 at 7, 48 49 & 62
72. House Judiciary Chairman Says U.S. Attorney Firings Were Petty Patronage' washingtonpost.com
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081102104_2.html)
73. DOJ: Prosecutor firing was politics, not crime (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe
/us_us_attorney_probe). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20100723164927/http://news.yahoo.com
/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_attorney_probe) July 23, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.
74. Philadelphia Daily News, "An apology for Alberto? Shirley, you jest", by Christina M. Flowers, posted July 23, 2010
75. Wall Street Journal, Review & Outlook, "General Piata's Exoneration, July 23, 2010
76. DOJ IG Report, September 2008
77. Egelko, Bob (January 24, 2007). "Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus". San Francisco
Chronicle. Retrieved June 19, 2007.
78. "Gonzales: There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution". Think Progress. January 18, 2007.
79. Parry, Robert (January 19, 2007). "Gonzales Questions 'Habeas Corpus' ". Commentary. Baltimore Chronicle &
Sentinel. Archived from the original on August 21, 2007. Retrieved August 28, 2007.
80. Hamilton, Alexander (July 1788). "The Federalist Papers : No. 84". The Avalon Project. Archived from the original on
May 3, 2007. Retrieved April 24, 2007.
81. E. Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction, 679 (1989)
82. W. Duker, A Constitutional History of Habeas Corpus, 135136 (1980)
83. Judiciary Act of 1789, Ch. 20, 1 stat. 73
84. Ins V. St. Cyr (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-767.ZO.html)
85. The Federalist #84 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm)
86. R. Fallon, et al., Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1289 (5th ed. 2003)
87. See also, Kennedy 200, Department of Justice responses to Questions for the record posed to Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales, Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight Hearing, January 18, 2007 (Part 3) Submitted to the
Honorable Patrick Leahy, by letter dated April 13, 2007 from Richard A. Hertling, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legislative Affairs
88. "Previously Secret Torture Memo Released" (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/24/cia.torture/index.html)
CNN.com, July 24, 2008
89. "C.I.A. Interrogations" (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations
/c/central_intelligence_agency/cia_interrogations/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier). New York Times, April 28, 2009
90. Memorandum for John Rizzo (https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/zubaydah.pdf), Acting General Counsel of the Central
Intelligence Agency, re: Interrogation of Al-Qaeda operative, dated August 1, 2002 from the Office of Legal Counsel
at the Department of Justice.
91. Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales (http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-gonzales-aug2002.pdf), Counsel to
President, re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation Under 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A, dated August 1, 2002 from the
Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice.
92. Mark Mazzetti, "Bush Aides Linked to Talks on Interrogations" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/washington
/25detain.html), New York Times, September 24, 2008
93. Joby Warrick and Peter Finn, "Harsh Tactics Readied Before Their Approval" (http://www.washingtonpost.com
/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042104055_2.html?sid=ST2009042101921), The Washington Post, April
22, 2009
94. Alex Koppelman, "Ashcroft suggests CIA sought legal approval after torture began" (http://www.salon.com/politics
/war_room/2008/07/17/ashcroft/index.html?source=refresh), Salon, July 17, 2008
95. David Johnston and James Risen "The Reach Of War: The Interrogations; Aides Say Memo Backed Coercion Already
In Use" (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E5DA1738F934A15755C0A9629C8B63), New York
Times, June 27, 2004
96. Jason Leopold "DOJ Report Says Yoo's Torture Memo Failed To Cite Supreme Court Case",
(http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/701-doj-report-blasts-yoo-for-not-citing-court-case-in-torture-memo.html) The
Public Record, February 22, 2009
97. Hilary Andersson, "Did America break its torture law?" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8148202.stm), BBC
Panorama, July 13, 2009
98. "US 'waterboarding' row rekindled" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8144625.stm), BBC, July 13, 2009
Page 66 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
99. Jay Bybee and John Yoo, "Memorandum for John Rizzo Acting General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency:
Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative" (http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf) U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, August 1, 2002
100. Enforced Disappearance, Illegal Interstate Transfer, and Other Human Rights Abuses Involving the UK Overseas
Territories: Executive Summary (http://www.reprieve.org.uk/documents/FinalReprieveFASCExecutiveSummary.pdf),
Reprieve
101. Walter Pincus, "Waterboarding Historically Controversial" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article
/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html), The Washington Post, 5 October 2006
102. Amy Goodman, "'The Dark Side': Jane Mayer on the Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on
American Ideals, Interview Transcript" (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/18/the_dark_side_jane_mayer_on),
Democracy Now!, 18 July 2008
103. "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts". NYT's Risen & Lichtblau's December 16, 2005 Bush Lets U.S. Spy
on Callers Without Courts. Archived from the original on February 6, 2006. Retrieved February 18, 2006. via
commondreams.org
104. Byron Calame (August 13, 2006). "Eavesdropping and the Election: An Answer on the Question of Timing".
105. President George W. Bush Radio Address to the Nation, December 17, 2003
106. Pincus, Walter (2006-05-22) Prosecution of Journalists Is Possible in NSA Leaks (http://www.washingtonpost.com
/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100348.html), Washington Post
107. Washington Post, "Prosecution of Journalists is Possible in NSA Leaks," May 22, 2006
108. USDOJ and OPR webpage
109. Letters from R. Hertling, Acting Assistant Attorney General to Rep. Conyers, March 22, 2007; see also
DOJ000748-63, Letter from R. Hertling to Sen. Feingold, Sen. Schumer, Sen. Durbin, Sen. Kennedy, Rep. Hinchy,
Rep. Lewis and Rep. Woolsey (same); DOJ 000772, Letter from R. Hertling to Sen. Leahy, June 21, 2007 at 1
(explaining that Attorney General Gonzales does not have authority to grant access to classified information relating
to TSP); DOJ 000774 (same, to Senator Specter).
110. Inspector General Report dated September 2008
111. Senate Judiciary Hearing, February 6, 2006 (statement of Alberto Gonzales)
112. Alberto Gonzales, Prepared Remarks at the Georgetown University Law Center (January 24, 2006),
http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_0601241.html
113. Alberto Gonzales Hosts "Ask the White House" (January 25, 2006) (interview on line forum with Alberto Gonzales),
http://web.archive.org/web/20060130181756/http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/print/20060125.html
114. The Situation Room (CNN television broadcast February 2, 2006), available at http://edition.CNN.com
/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/02/sitroom.02/html
115. U.S. Department of Justice, The NSA Program to Detect and Prevent Terrorist Attacks: Myth v. Reality 2, 4 (January
27, 2006), http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/nsa_myth_v_reality.pdf
116. Larry King Live (CNN television broadcast January 16, 2006) (interview by Larry King with Alberto Gonzales),
available at http://ediction.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/-6-1/16/LKL.HTML
117. Klaidman, Daniel (2008-12-13). "Now We Know What the Battle Was About". Newsweek. Archived from the original
on 2010-11-13.
118. Schumer Calls for Special Prosecutor for Gonzales' Perjury (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZETnn87QG8) on
YouTube
119. Decision Points, by George W. Bush, 2010
120. Johnston, David (May 16, 2007). "Bush Intervened in Dispute Over N.S.A. Eavesdropping". The New York Times.
Archived from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
121. J. Comey, Testimony to the S. Judiciary Committee, May 15, 2007 at 6
122. Ray Suarez (July 27, 2007). "Democrats Seek Perjury Charge for Attorney General". PBS NewsHour.
123. Jeffrey Rosen (September 7, 2007). "Conscience of a Conservative". New York Times Magazine. Archived from the
original on December 9, 2008. Retrieved September 5, 2007.
124. J Goldsmith, Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, October 2, 2007 at 10
125. "Text: F.B.I. Director's Notes" (PDF). The New York Times. August 17, 2007.
126. A. Gonzales testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee, July 24, 2007 at 10
127. p.15 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, July 24, 2007 by A. Gonzales
128. Inspector General report p, 36)
129. Unclassified Report on the President's Surveillance Program, July 10, 2009, p. 36 prepared by Office of the Inspector
General of the DOD, DOJ, CIA, NSA and Office of the DNI
29 of 34
Page 67 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
130. Unclassified Report on the President's Surveillance Program, July 10, 2009, Prepared by Office of Inspector General
of the DOD, DOI, CIA, NSA and Office of the DNI
131. David Johnston and Scott Shane (July 25, 2007). "Gonzales Denies Improper Pressure on Ashcroft". The New York
Times.
132. "Documents Dispute Gonzales' Testimony". The New York Times. Associated Press. July 26, 2007. [Link out-of-date.]
133. p. 36 of the July 2009 DOJ Inspector General Report
134. David Stout (July 26, 2007). "F.B.I. Chief Challenges Gonzales's Testimony". The New York Times. Archived from the
original on June 5, 2015.
135. David Johnston and Scott Shane (August 17, 2007). "Notes Detail Pressure on Ashcroft Over Spying". The New York
Times.
136. out-of-date.%5d "Leahy: Gonzales Must Clarify Statements" Check |url= value (help). Associated Press. July 29,
2007.
137. DOJ Inspector General July 10, 2009 Report
138. Michael Fletcher (June 28, 2007). "Senators Subpoena The White House". Washington Post.
139. "Letter to Fred Fielding, Esq., Counsel to the President" (PDF). United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Patrick Leahy, Chairman. August 8, 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 6, 2010.
140. Deb Riechmann (August 18, 2007). "White House Wants More Time on Subpoenas". The Washington Post.
Associated Press.
141. Jesse J. Holland (August 20, 2007). "Leahy Threatens Bush Aides With Contempt". The Washington Post. Associated
Press.
142. David Stout (July 27, 2007). "White House Backs Gonzales on Testimony". The New York Times. Archived from the
143. Philip Shenon and David Johnston (August 29, 2007). "Democrats Say They Will Press Gonzales Inquiries". The New
York Times.
144. Philip Shenon (August 30, 2007). "Testimony by Gonzales Is Subject of Inquiry". The New York Times.
145. Unclassified Report in the President's Surveillance Program, July 10, 2009, DOJ Inspector General Report
146. Mimi Swartz (July 30, 2010). "The Outsider". Texas Monthly.
147. Unclassified Report on the President's Surveillance Program, July 10, 2009, at 37
148. FN: letter from J.M. McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, to Senator Arlen Specter, Ranking Member, Senate
Committee on the Judiciary (July 31, 2007)
149. Letter from Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, to Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, at 12 (August 1, 2007); Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, February 6, 2006, supra note 21, at 200
(Questions and Answers, Responses and Alberto R. Gonzales to Questions from Senator Russell Feingold (July 17,
2006); id at 62 (statement of Alberto Gonzales)
150. Preserving Prosecutorial Independence Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Part IV, 110th
Congress 7 (May 15, 2007) at 15; id at 19 (Statement of James Comey) ("I've tried Senator, not to confirm that I'm
talking about any particular program. I just don't feel comfortable in open forum.")
151. Preserving the Rule of Law in the Fight Against Terror: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 110th
Congress 12 (October 2, 2007) at 18 (Statement of Jack Goldsmith) ("Well, let me just say in [Judge Gonzales']
defense that.there is a technical interpretation of what he said that is truebut it's very difficult to talk about it
[,]there's confusion about what the labels refer to [,] and it's very difficult to talk about it in an unclassified setting. I
couldcertainly explain it to you in much greater detail in a closed session."
152. "Gonzales, Bush Go Back a Long Way". NPR. March 20, 2007. Retrieved August 27, 2007.
153. "Gonzales explains bedside meeting with ailing Ashcroft". Politics. CNN. July 24, 2007. Archived from the original
on March 9, 2008. Retrieved September 1, 2007.
154. "Gonzales Rapped As President's 'Yes Man' ". ABC News. May 19, 2007. Retrieved August 27, 2007.
155. Andrew Cohen (April 3, 2007). "Part I: Alberto Gonzales: A Willing Accessory at Justice". Washington Post.
Retrieved August 27, 2007.
156. National Journal, "For the Defense", March 3, 2006
157. Berlow, Alan (November 21, 2004). "The President's Yes Man". Washington Post. p. B07. Retrieved April 24, 2007.
158. Barton Gellman and Jo Becker (June 25, 2007). "Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power". Washington Post.
159. Memorandum For the President from Alberto R. Gonzales dated 1/25/2002
160. AP "Bush expresses fresh confidence in embattled Attorney General Gonzales", by Terrence Hunt, April 23, 2007
161. David Stout (May 24, 2007). "Bush Backs Gonzales in Face of No-Confidence Vote". The New York Times. Retrieved
30 of 34
Page 68 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
August 28, 2007.

162. "H.Res. 417". Library of Congress. May 21, 2007. Retrieved May 24, 2007.
163. Roll call, 110th congress, 1st Session, Senate vote number 207, June 11, 2007, 05:55 PM (http://www.senate.gov
/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00207) On the Cloture
Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S.J.Res.14.) United States Senate.
Retrieved June 12, 2007.
164. Lipton, Eric (June 11, 2007). "No-Confidence Vote on Gonzales Fails in the Senate". The New York Times. Archived
from the original on May 15, 2013. Retrieved July 11, 2007.
165. "Frank O. Bowman III, Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law". Faculty. University of Missouri
School of Law. Archived from the original on March 8, 2007. Retrieved May 5, 2007.
166. Bowman, Frank (May 3, 2007). "He's Impeachable, You Know". New York Times. Archived from the original on July
18, 2011. Retrieved May 5, 2007.
167. "BREAKING: House Democrats Introducing Bill To Investigate Impeachment Of Alberto Gonzales". Crooks and
Liars.
168. Representative Jay Inslee Democrat Washington (July 31, 2007). "That the Committee on the Judiciary shall
investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach Alberto R. Gonzales,
Attorney General". Retrieved August 27, 2007.
169. Reuben Navarrette, Jr., March 21, 2007
170. Press Release, dated March 16, 2007 from the Latino Coalition, "The Latino Coalition Supports Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales and calls for an end to Political Persecution against Leading Hispanic Americans
171. Letter from Art Gordon, National President of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association to President George
W. Bush, dated March 16, 2007
172. Batt, Tony (March 15, 2007). "Reid expects attorney general to quit". Las Vegas Review-Journal.
173. "Recent Posts". The Washington Post.
174. Sen. Charles Schumer (March 13, 2007). Schumer Calls For Gonzales's Resignation (Television production). CNN.
Retrieved August 27, 2007. "carrying out the political wishes of the President"
175. "Gonzales Vows To Stay On The Job". Politics. CBS News. April 23, 2007. Retrieved August 27, 2007. "I don't think
he can be effective"
176. Calling for Gonzales's Resignation Common Cause (http://www.commoncause.org
/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=2776009)
177. "Cantwell calls for Gonzales to resign". KEPR-TV. April 25, 2007. Archived from the original on September 30,
2007. Retrieved September 1, 2007.
178. Hillary Clinton calls for Gonzales's resignation (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2948538&page=1) March 13,
2007
179. Presidential Hopefuls Speak Up on Prosecutor Dismissals (http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/03/19/cq_2429.html)
180. Werner, Erica (March 25, 2007). "Feinstein calls for Attorney General Gonzales to resign". United States Senator
Dianne Feinstein. Archived from the original on October 15, 2007. Retrieved September 1, 2007. "I believe he should
step down."
181. Kennedy: Resignation is long overdue (http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5463)
182. Kerry calls on Bush to fire Attorney General (http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=270585) Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20090112063042/http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=270585) January 12,
2009, at the Wayback Machine.
183. Lincoln and Pryor call for Gonzales's ouster (http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=d9cb4eccbcf2-4940-9c30-f1847cd09b7e&rss=315)
184. "Obama Renews Call for Gonzales to be Replaced as Attorney General". Barack Obama. March 29, 2007. Archived
from the original on June 13, 2007. Retrieved August 27, 2007. "subverted justice to promote a political agenda"
185. "Pryor Calls for Attorney General Gonzales to Resign". Senate office of Mark Pryor. March 15, 2007. Archived from
the original on March 28, 2007. Retrieved April 17, 2007. "when the Attorney General lies to a United States
Senator it's time for that Attorney General to go"
186. Gonzales not convincing. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9692295) (April 19, 2007). National
Public Radio. Retrieved on August 28, 2007.
187. Gonzales must resign. (http://speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0150) (April 20, 2007). Press Office of Speaker
Nancy Pelosi. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved on August 28, 2007. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20101203090641/http://speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0150) December 3,
2010, at the Wayback Machine.
31 of 34
Page 69 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
32 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
188. Kiely, Kathy; Kevin Johnson (March 15, 2007). "Second GOP senator suggests Gonzales should go". USA Today.
Retrieved April 20, 2007.
189. Lara Jakes Jordan (April 19, 2007). "Gonzales Confronts Call for Resignation". ABC News.
190. Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jeff Zeleny (March 14, 2007). "Mistakes Made on Prosecutors, Gonzales Admits". New York
Times.
191. "McCain: It would be best for Gonzales to quit". MSNBC. Associated Press. April 26, 2007. Archived from the
original on April 28, 2007. Retrieved April 27, 2007.
192. "GOP Senator says Gonzales should consider resigning". CNN. April 20, 2007. Retrieved April 20, 2007.
193. Kiely, Kathy; Kevin Johnson (March 15, 2007). "Second GOP senator suggests Gonzales should go". USA Today.
Retrieved September 1, 2007. "GOP Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota said he is "deeply concerned about how this
whole process has been handled.""
194. Schemo, D.J. (April 23, 2007). Gonzales 'bad for Justice Department,' Specter says. (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view
/0,1249,660214214,00.html) Deseret Morning News (UT). Retrieved on August 28, 2007.
195. Kellman, Laurie (May 16, 2007). "Hagel Demands Gonzales's Resignation". The Washington Post. Retrieved
September 1, 2007.
196. Strategist Says Gonzales Is "Finished." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/politics/main2572891.shtml)
(March 15, 2007). CBS News. Retrieved on August 28, 2007.
197. Congressman Paul Gillmor (blog). In B. Roode (March 23, 2007). Gillmor joins in calls for Gonzales to go.
(http://www.gillmorblog.com/?p=204) Sandusky Register (OH). Retrieved on August 28, 2007.
198. Goetz, Kaomi (April 5, 2007). "Ehlers Says U.S. Attorney General Should Resign". Michigan Radio News. NPR.
Retrieved April 22, 2007.
199. "Nevada Republican congressman calls for Gonzales to step down". Las Vegas Sun. April 21, 2007. Archived from
the original on April 26, 2007. Retrieved April 22, 2007.
200. "Bipartisan questioning about Gonzales needs to continue". Daily Nebraskan. April 10, 2007. Retrieved April 16,
2006.
201. "House Republican leader says Gonzales should go". News. Muzi.com. April 21, 2007. Archived from the original on
September 28, 2007. Retrieved September 1, 2007. ""[...] I think it is time for fresh leadership at the Department of
Justice," Putnam said in a brief telephone interview."
202. Tancredo: Gonzales should move on - politics - Decision '08 - Tom Tancredo News - msnbc.com
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17706443/ns/politics-decision_08/t/tancredo-gonzales-shouldmove/#.TmqsB9S8GSo)
203. White House insiders: Gonzales hurt himself before panel (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/19
/gonzales.testimony/) April 23, 2007
204. Bogden out for 'wrong reasons': Justice Department called incompetent (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories
/sun/2007/mar/22/566630993.html) March 22, 2007
205. Republican support for Gonzales erodes Politics MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17783788/)
206. Gonzales Fall For Attorney Firings? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/16/politics/main2580260.shtmlWill)
March 16, 2007
207. Gonzales rejects calls for resignation (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03
/13/gonzales_accepts_resignation_of_top_aide/) March 13, 2007
208. Bozell III, L. Brent (March 29, 2007). "Sunday's Pseudo-Republicans". Media Research Center. Archived from the
original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved September 1, 2007.
209. "Richardson calls for Gonzales resignation". KOB. April 20, 2007. Archived from the original on September 28,
2007. Retrieved September 1, 2007.
210. "Bush Ally Gonzales resigns post". BBC News. August 27, 2007. Retrieved August 28, 2007.
211. Eggen, Dan; Elizabeth Williamson (September 19, 2007). "Democrats May Tie Confirmation to Gonzales Papers".
Washington Post. pp. A10. Retrieved September 19, 2007.
212. Isikoff, Michael; Mark Josenball (October 10, 2007). "Gonzales Hires a Top Gun: Still under investigation by
Congress and Justice Department lawyers who once worked for him, the former attorney general has turned to a
leading Washington attorney to help him beat the rap". Newsweek. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007.
Retrieved October 13, 2007.
213. SR.com: Gonzales could be prosecuted, McKay says (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking
/story.asp?ID=12036)
214. DOJ IG Report dated July 2009
215. Dan Eggen (November 15, 2007). "Gonzales Defense Fund Set Up Former Attorney General's Legal Fees Mount in
Page 70 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Probe". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 15, 2007.

216. Report: Ex-AG Gonzales Mishandled Classified Info (http://www.npr.org/templates/story
/story.php?storyId=94203302) by Nina Totenberg. All Things Considered, National Public Radio. September 2, 2008.
217. Report of Investigation Regarding Allegations of Mishandling of Classified Documents by Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales, Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, September 2, 2008
218. Lewis, Neil A. (April 13, 2008). "In Searching for New Job, Gonzales Sees No Takers". New York Times. Retrieved
June 12, 2013.
219. "Doyle Rogers Distinguished Chair of Law to be Filled by Alberto Gonzales" (http://forum.belmont.edu/news/2011
/10/03/doyle-rogers-distinguished-chair-of-law-to-be-filled-by-alberto-gonzales/) Belmont University Press Release,
Retrieved November 10, 2011
220. "Former United States Attorney General Judge Alberto Gonzales Joins Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis"
(http://www.wallerlaw.com/articles/2011/10/05/former-united-states-attorney-general-judge-alberto-gonzales-joinswaller-lansden-dortch-davis.221177) Press Release from Waller Lansden, Retrieved 10-11-11 Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20120405061738/http://www.wallerlaw.com/articles/2011/10/05/former-united-statesattorney-general-judge-alberto-gonzales-joins-waller-lansden-dortch-davis.221177) April 5, 2012, at the Wayback
Machine.
221. Wall Street Journal (2008). Alberto Gonzales: Interview Excerpts (http://online.wsj.com/article
/SB123069001579644657.html). Retrieved January 1, 2009.
222. Daily News website, opinions archives "Editorial, "Gonzo the Clown," " Check |url= value (help). Daily News.
January 5, 2009. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
223. Perez, Evan (December 31, 2008). "Gonzales Defends Role in Antiterror Policies". Wall Street Journal.
224. The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer, May 26, 2009
225. Larry King Live, Larry King, April 29, 2010
226. Geraldo at Large, Geraldo Rivera, December 22, 2009
227. Tell Me More, NPR, January 26, 2009; Tell Me More, NPR, May 13, 2009
228. Washington Post, August 22, 2010, "Anchor Babies aren't the problem with immigration"; Los Angeles Times, July 2,
2008, "The Latino Factor"; USA Today, May 14, 2008, "We owe it to our children to protect them"
229. Taxi to the Dark Side (2007) IMDb (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0854678/)
230. "Controversial former U.S. Attorney General hired at Texas Tech". Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. July 7, 2009.
Retrieved July 7, 2009.
231. "Former AG Gonzales to teach at Texas Tech". Associated Press. July 7, 2009. Retrieved July 7, 2009.
232. Post, Sally (July 7, 2009). "Alberto Gonzales Brings Expertise, Experience to Texas Tech". Texas Tech Today.
Retrieved July 8, 2009.
233. "Inside Higher Ed Texas Tech Profs Oppose Hiring of Alberto Gonzales". Texas Tech Today. July 27, 2009.
234. The Daily Toreador, March 30, 2009, "Gonzales Adapts to West Texas life, Tech professorship
235. "Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales indicted in S. Texas". Houston Chronicle. November 18, 2008. Archived from the
236. Los Angeles Times,December 2, 2008, "Cheney indictment dropped"
237. Houston Chronicle,November 18, 2008
238. "Cheney indictment dropped". Los Angeles Times. December 2, 2008.
239. Universal jurisdiction * "Text of criminal complaint" (PDF). The Center for Constitutional Rights. 2006. * Adam
Zagorin, Adam (November 10, 2006). "Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse". Time Magazine. *
"War Crimes Suit Prepared against Rumsfeld". Democracy Now. November 9, 2006. * Jeremy Brecher and Brendan
Smith (November 3, 2006). "War Criminals, Beware". The Nation.
240. Marlise Simons (March 28, 2009). "Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials". New York
Times. Archived from the original on May 2, 2009.
241. "Spain may decide Guantanamo probe this week". Reuters. March 28, 2009. Archived from the original on April 26,
2009. Retrieved March 29, 2009. mirror (http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F
%2Fin.reuters.com%2Farticle%2FdomesticNews%2FidINLT53678920090329%3Fsp%3Dtrue&date=2009-03-30)
242. The Huffington Post, posted September 8, 2009, by Andy Worthington
243. The Texas Supreme Court granted rehearing and reversed its own judgment, in an opinion written by Justice Hecht. 90
S.W.3d 268 (Tex. 2002).

33 of 34
Page 71 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
34 of 34
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
External links
Official biography (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html) from
whitehouse.gov
A second biography (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=241596&page=1) from ABC News
Political offices
Preceded by
Tony Garza
Secretary of State of Texas

19981999
Succeeded by
Elton Bomer
Legal offices
Preceded by
Raul Gonzalez
Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme

Court
19992001
Succeeded by
Wallace Jefferson
Preceded by
Beth Nolan
White House Counsel

20012005
Succeeded by
Harriet Miers
Preceded by
John Ashcroft
United States Attorney General

20052007
Succeeded by
Michael Mukasey
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Gonzales&oldid=734491853"

Categories: 1955 births American judges of Mexican descent American lawyers
American politicians of Mexican descent American Roman Catholics
Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy George W. Bush Administration cabinet members
Hispanic and Latino American members of the Cabinet of the United States Harvard Law School alumni
Living people People from San Antonio, Texas Rice University alumni Secretaries of State of Texas
Texas lawyers Texas Republicans Texas Supreme Court justices Texas Tech University faculty
United States Attorneys General United States presidential advisors University of Houston faculty
White House Counsels
This page was last modified on 14 August 2016, at 18:38.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Page 72 of 107

8/31/2016 3:44 AM
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 of 19
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy was initiated by the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven
United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006, by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice.
Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the
U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for
dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to
initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The
U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act
reauthorization.[4][5][6] [7][8]
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to
fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally
flawed", and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".[9] In July 2010, the
Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that
the firing was inappropriately political, but not criminal, saying "Evidence did not demonstrate that any
prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative
team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the
removal of Iglesias."[10]
Contents
1 Issues in brief
1.1 Administration rationale unclear
1.2 Administration testimony contradicted by documents
1.3 Politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice
1.4 Dismissed attorneys and elections
2 Fallout
2.1 Inspector General Report and Special Prosecutor
3 Replacement of the U.S. Attorneys
3.1 Initial planning
3.2 Implementing the plan
4 Reactions and congressional investigation
4.1 Initial reaction
4.2 Further investigation and resignations
4.2.1 Battle resignation
4.2.2 Sampson resignation
4.2.3 Executive Privilege claims
4.2.4 Goodling resignation
4.2.5 Gonzales resignation
4.2.6 Testimony of Sara Taylor: Claims of executive privilege
4.3 Contempt of Congress charges
5 Aftermath
5.1 Subpoenas and lost emails
Page 73 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
2 of 19
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Dismissal
of U.S. attorneys controversy
5.2 Appointment of U.S. Attorneys and the 2005 Patriot Act
reauthorization
()
6 See also
Articles
7 Notes
8 References and external links
Issues in brief
By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a
new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a
"political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at
the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new
presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S.
Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new
President is from a different political party, almost all of the
resignations will be eventually accepted.[11] The attorneys are
then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the
new President's party.[12][12][13] Despite this, their political
impartiality in deciding which cases to prosecute and in
arguing those cases before judges and juries with diverse views
is essential.[14]
U.S. Senators were concerned about a little-noticed provision
in the re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006 that
eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of
U.S. Attorneys made by the United States Attorney General to
fill vacancies. The law permitted the Attorney General to
appoint interim U.S. Attorneys without a term limit in office,
and avoid a confirming vote by the Senate. The change gave
the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the
President, since the President's U.S. Attorney appointees are
required to be confirmed by the Senate; the law undermined the
confirmation authority of the Senate.[15] The U.S. Senate was
concerned that, in dismissing the U.S. Attorneys, the
administration planned to fill the vacancies with its own
choices, thus bypassing Senate confirmation and the traditional
consultation with Senators in the selection process. Congress
rescinded the provision on June 14, 2007.[16]
Administration rationale unclear

The reasons for the dismissal of each individual U.S. Attorney
were unclear. Two suggested motivations were that the
administration wanted to make room for U.S. Attorneys who
would be more sympathetic to the administration's political
agenda, and the administration wanted to advance the careers
of promising conservatives.[2][17][18] Critics said that the
attorneys were fired for failing to prosecute Democratic
Page 74 of 107
Timeline
Summary of attorneys
Documents
Congressional hearings
List of dismissed attorneys
Complete list of related articles
G. W. Bush administration officials involved
Fred F. Fielding, White House Counsel
William K. Kelley, Deputy White House
Counsel
William Moschella, Principal Associate
Deputy Attorney General
Brett Tolman, U.S. Attorney, District of Utah,
former counsel to Senate Judiciary
Committee
Mary Beth Buchanan, U.S. Attorney, Western
District of Pennsylvania, former Director of
the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys from
2004 to 2005
Involved administration officials who resigned
Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney
General, former White House Counsel
Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to the Attorney
General
Michael A. Battle, Director of the Executive
Office for U.S. Attorneys
Michael Elston, Chief of Staff to the Deputy
Attorney General
Monica Goodling, Justice Department's
liaison to the White House
William W. Mercer, U.S. Attorney, Acting
Associate Attorney General (retains position
as U.S. Attorney in Montana)
Sara Taylor, Deputy Assistant to the President
and Director of Political Affairs
Paul McNulty, Deputy Attorney General
Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel
(resigned prior to publicity surrounding the
controversy, effective January 31, 2007)
Karl Rove, White House Deputy Chief of
Staff
Bradley Schlozman, Director Executive
Office for U.S. Attorneys; former Acting
Assistant Attorney General for, and later
Principal Deputy Attorney General for the
Civil Rights Division; former interim U.S.
Attorney for the Western District of Missouri
8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
politicians, for failing to prosecute claims of election fraud that would hamper Democratic voter registration, as
retribution for prosecuting Republican politicians, or for failing to pursue adult obscenity prosecutions.[19] The
administration and its supporters said that the attorneys were dismissed for job-performance reasons "related to
policy, priorities and management", and that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.[20] However,
at least six attorneys had recently received positive evaluations of their performance from the Department of
Justice.[21] In September 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General's investigation concluded that the
dismissals were politically motivated and improper.[9]
Administration testimony contradicted by documents

Members of Congress investigating the dismissals found that sworn testimony from Department of Justice
officials appeared to be contradicted by internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress
was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remained unclear despite hours of testimony by
Attorney General Gonzales and senior Department of Justice staff in congressional committee hearings.[22][23]
The Bush administration issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the
firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.[24][25][26] The origin and evolution of the list
of attorneys to be dismissed remained unclear.[27][28][29][30] In response the Inspector General's report in
September 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed Acting United States Attorney for the District
of Connecticut, Nora Dannehy as special prosecutor to determine if administration officials had perjured
themselves in testimony to Congress.[31] Her investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to
charge anyone with perjury.[10][32]
Politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice

Attorney General Gonzales, in a confidential memorandum dated March 1, 2006, delegated authority to senior
DOJ staff Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson to hire and dismiss political appointees and some civil service
positions.
On May 2, 2007, the Department of Justice announced two separate investigations into hirings conducted by
Goodling: one by the department's Inspector General, and a second by the Office of Professional
Responsibility.[23] In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, Goodling stated that
she had "crossed the line" and broken civil service laws regulating hiring for civil service positions, and had
improperly weighed political factors in assessing applicants.[33]
According to a January 2009 Justice Department report, investigators found that Bradley Schlozman, as interim
head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, "favored applicants with conservative political or
ideological affiliations and disfavored applicants with civil rights or human rights experience whom he
considered to be overly liberal". The positions under consideration were not political, but career, for which the
political and ideological views of candidates are not to be considered, according to federal law and
guidelines.[34]
In a letter of May 30, 2007, to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the United States Department of Justice Office
of the Inspector General and Counsel for the Office of Professional Responsibility confirmed that they were
expanding their investigation beyond "the removals of United States Attorneys" to include "DOJ hiring and
personnel decisions" by Monica Goodling and other Justice Department employees.[35]
Dismissed attorneys and elections

3 of 19
Page 75 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
The controversy surrounding the U.S. Attorneys dismissals was often linked to elections or voter-fraud issues.
Allegations were that some of the U.S. Attorneys were dismissed for failing to instigate investigations damaging
to Democratic politicians, or for failing to more aggressively pursue voter-fraud cases.[3][36] Such allegations
were made by some of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys themselves to suggest reasons they may have been
dismissed.[37] The background to the allegations is the recent tendency for elections in parts of the United States
to be very close; an election outcome can be affected by an announced investigation of a politician. It is explicit
policy of the Department of Justice to avoid bringing voter-related cases during an election for this reason.[38] In
September 2008, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice concluded that some of the dismissals were
motivated by the refusal of some of the U.S. Attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases during the 2006 election
cycle.[9]
Fallout
By April 2007, there was some speculation that the dismissal of the US attorneys might affect cases of public
corruption and voter fraud. According to the National Law Journal,
"Just the appearance of political influence in cases related to those firings, combined with the
recent, unusual reversal of a federal public corruption conviction in Wisconsin [c.f., Georgia
Thompson], some say, will spur aggressive defense lawyers to question the political motivation of
prosecutors in certain cases; make magistrates and judges more skeptical of the evidence before
them; and perhaps even chill line prosecutors in their pursuit of some indictments."[14]
By mid-September 2007, nine senior staff of the Department of Justice associated with the controversy had
resigned.[39][40][41][42] The most prominent resignations include:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales[43][44][45]
Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty;
Acting Associate Attorney General William W. Mercer resigned
from the acting office prior to Senate confirmation hearings for the
same position, and returned to his post as U.S. Attorney for
Montana (he held dual positions);
Chief of staff for the Attorney General Kyle Sampson
Chief of Staff for the Deputy Attorney General Michael Elston;
Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA)
Michael A. Battle;
the subsequently appointed Director to the EOUSA, Bradley
Schlozman, also the former acting Assistant Attorney General for
the Civil Rights Division;
the Department of Justice's White House Liaison Monica Goodling
Alberto Gonzales
In June 2008, a grand jury was empaneled to consider criminal indictments against officials involved in the
firings. The grand jury was presented evidence from ongoing investigations at the Department of Justice
Inspector General's office and at the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility.[46]
Inspector General Report and Special Prosecutor

4 of 19
Page 76 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
On September 29, 2008 the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) released a report on the matter that
found most of the firings were politically motivated and improper. The next day Attorney General Michael
Mukasey appointed a special prosecutor Nora Dannehy to decide whether criminal charges should be brought
against Gonzales and other officials involved in the firings.[31] The IG's report contained "substantial evidence"
that party politics drove a number of the firings, and IG Glenn Fine said in a statement that Gonzales had
"abdicated his responsibility to safeguard the integrity and independence of the department."[47] The report itself
stopped short of resolving questions about higher White House involvement in the matter, because of what it
said were the refusal to cooperate of a number of key players, among them Karl Rove, Senator Pete Domenici
and Harriet Miers and because the White House refused to hand over its documents related to the firings.[48]
On July 21, 2010, Dannehy concluded that "there was insufficient evidence to establish that persons knowingly
made material false statements to [the Office of Inspector General] or Congress or corruptly endeavored to
obstruct justice"[49] and that no criminal charges would be filed against Sampson or Gonzales.
Replacement of the U.S. Attorneys

Initial planning
On January 6, 2005, Colin Newman, an assistant in the White House counsels
office, wrote to David Leitch stating, "Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly
quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. Attorneys, whether we were
going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of
them or selectively replace them, etc.'". The email was then forwarded to Kyle
Sampson, chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.[50][51]
In reply, Kyle Sampson, then Department of Justice counsel to Attorney General
John Ashcroft, wrote that it would be "weird to ask them to leave before
completing at least a 4-year term", that they "would like to replace 1520 percent
of the current U.S. Attorneys" and that the rest "are doing a great job, are loyal
Bushies, etc."[51]
Harriet Miers
In March 2005, Sampson ...

"came up with a checklist. He rated each of the U.S. Attorneys with
criteria that appeared to value political allegiance as much as job
performance. He recommended retaining 'strong U.S. Attorneys
who have... exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.'
He suggested 'removing weak U.S. Attorneys who have... chafed
against Administration initiatives'".[52]
Sampson wrote in January 2006 to Miers that he recommended that the
Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work
Karl Rove
together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys, and that
by limiting the number of attorneys "targeted for removal and replacement" it
would "mitigat[e] the shock to the system that would result from an across-the-board firing".[53]
On February 12, 2006, Monica Goodling sent a spreadsheet of each U.S. Attorney's political activities and
5 of 19
Page 77 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
memberships in conservative political groups, in an email to senior Administration officials, with the comment
"This is the chart that the AG requested".[54]
Sampson strongly urged using changes to the law governing U.S. Attorney appointments to bypass
Congressional confirmation, writing in a September 17, 2006 memo to Harriet Miers:
"I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing
to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed...It will be
counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready
to roll immediately...I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new
statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments...[By avoiding Senate
confirmation] we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred
person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White
House."[53]
Implementing the plan

In October 2006, George W. Bush told Alberto Gonzales that he had received complaints that some of the U.S.
Attorneys had not pursued certain voter-fraud investigations. The complaints came from Republican officials,
who demanded fraud investigations into a number of Democratic campaigns.[53]
According to Newsweek, "Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff, developed the list of eight prosecutors to be
fired last Octoberwith input from the White House".[55]
On November 27, 2006, Gonzales met with senior advisers to discuss the plan.[56] The Justice Department did
not receive White House approval for the firings until early December. As late as December 2, Sampson had
written to Michael Elston that the Justice department was "[s]till waiting for green light from White House" with
regards to the firing. Deputy White House counsel William K. Kelley responded on December 4, 2006, saying,
"We're a go for the U.S. Atty plan... [the White House office of legislative affairs], political, communications
have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure
comes."[57]
On December 7, 2006, Justice Department official Michael A. Battle informed seven U.S. Attorneys that they
were being dismissed.[58]
Although seven attorneys were dismissed on December 7, 2006, subsequent disclosures show that three or more
additional attorneys were dismissed under similar circumstances between 2005 and 2006.[59] U.S. Attorney Bud
Cummins in Arkansas had been informed in June 2006 that he was to be replaced, and he resigned, effective
December 20, 2006, several days after the public announcement of the appointment of his successor Timothy
Griffin.[60]

6 of 19
Page 78 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary ( )

Dismissed
attorney
Effective date
of resignation
Federal district
Replacement1
Dismissed December 7, 2006

1.
David Iglesias
Dec 19, 2006
New Mexico
Larry Gomez
2.
Kevin V. Ryan
Jan 16, 2007
Northern California
Scott Schools
3.
John McKay
Jan 26, 2007
Western Washington
Jeffrey C. Sullivan
4.
Paul K. Charlton
Jan 31, 2007
Arizona
Daniel G. Knauss
5.
Carol Lam
Feb 15, 2007
Southern California
Karen Hewitt
6.
Daniel Bogden
Feb 28, 2007
Nevada
Steven Myhre
7.
Margaret Chiara
Mar 16, 2007
Western Michigan
Russell C. Stoddard
Others dismissed in 2006

1.
Todd Graves
Mar 24, 20062
Western Missouri
Bradley Schlozman6
2.
Bud Cummins
Dec 20, 20063
Eastern Arkansas
Timothy Griffin5
Dismissed in 2005
1.
Thomas M. DiBiagio
Jan 2, 20054
Maryland
Allen F. Loucks
2.
Kasey Warner
Jul 20054
Southern W. Virginia
Charles T. Miller
1Source:
Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys Offices (https://web.archive.org/web/20070313225543/http:

//www.justice.gov/usao/offices/index.html)
2Informed
of dismissal January 2006.

of dismissal June 2006.
4Date resignation requested by the Department of Justice is unknown.
5Subsequently submitted resignation on May 30, 2007, effective June 1, 2007.
6Subsequently returned to positions at the Department of Justice in Washington
3Informed
David Iglesias (R) believes he was removed from office at the behest of two NM Republican congressmen when
he refused to prosecute state Democratic senators before the November 2006 election.[61]
Kevin Ryan (R) Though described as "loyal to the Bush administration," he was allegedly fired for the possible
controversy that negative job performance evaluations might cause if they were released.[62]
John McKay (R) Was given a positive job evaluation 7 months before he was fired. After a close WA governor's
race resulted in a Democratic victory, local Republicans criticized McKay for not investigating allegations of
voter fraud.[63]
Paul K. Charlton (R) Was given a positive job performance evaluation before he was dismissed. He may have
been fired because he had started a corruption investigation about Rick Renzi (R) AR.[64]
Carol Lam (R) oversaw the Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham military contracting corruption case. Congressman
7 of 19
Page 79 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Darrell Issa complained (falsely) that Lam was not prosecuting illegal border crossings aggressively enough.[65]
Daniel Bogden (R) was dismissed after 17 years because of a vague sense that a "stronger leader" was needed.
His loyalty to President Bush was questioned by Kyle Sampson(R) Chief of Staff and Counselor to Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales(R).[66]
Margaret Chiara(R) Was given a positive job evaluation in 2005, and told she was being removed to "make way"
for another individual.[67]
Todd Graves (R) had been pressed to bring a civil suit against Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, (D)
for allegedly failing to crack down on voting fraud.[68]
Bud Cummins (R) allegedly was asked to leave so Timothy Griffin, an aide to Karl Rove, could have his job.[69]
Thomas M. DiBiagio (R) believes he was asked to step down due to his corruption investigations into the
administration of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R).[70]
Reactions and congressional investigation

Initial reaction
The initial reaction was from the senators of the affected states. In a letter to Gonzales on January 9, 2007,
Senators Feinstein (D, California) and Leahy (D, Vermont; Chair of the Committee) of the Senate Judiciary
Committee expressed concern that the confirmation process for U.S. attorneys would be bypassed, and on
January 11, they, together with Senator Pryor (D, Arkansas), introduced legislation "to prevent circumvention of
the Senate's constitutional prerogative to confirm U.S. Attorneys", called Preserving United States Attorney
Independence Act of 2007, S. 214 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/214) and H.R. 580
(https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/580).[71] [72] The initial concern was about the USA
PATRIOT Act and the confirmation process, rather than the politicization of the U.S. Attorneys.
Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 18. He assured the committee that he did
not intend to bypass the confirmation process and denied the firings were politically motivated.[73]
The concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein and Pryor were followed up by hearings before the Senate
Judiciary Committee called by Senator Schumer (D, New York) in February.[74][75] Deputy Attorney General
Paul McNulty testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6. He said that the seven were fired
for job performance issues and not political considerations; these statements lead several of the dismissed
attorneys, who had been previously silent, to come forward with questions about their dismissals, partially
because their performance reviews prior to their dismissal had been highly favorable.[76]
In subsequent closed-door testimony on April 27, 2007 to the committee, McNulty said that days after the
February hearing, he learned that White House officials had not revealed to him White House influence and
discussions on creating the list.[76][77] McNulty in February called Senator Schumer by telephone to apologize
for the inaccurate characterization of the firings.[78] McNulty testified that Bud Cummins, the U.S. Attorney for
Arkansas, was removed to install a former aide to Karl Rove and Republican National Committee opposition
research director, Timothy Griffin.[69] Cummins, apparently, "was ousted after Harriet E. Miers, the former
White House counsel, intervened on behalf of Griffin".[76][79]
8 of 19
Page 80 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
McNulty's testimony that the attorneys were fired for "performance related issues" caused the attorneys to come
forward in protest.[76][80][81] There is some evidence that the administration was concerned about the attorneys'
going public with complaints prior to this time.[82]
Salon.com reported: "[A]t least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced
to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department
official knowledgeable about their cases."[83]
Further investigation and resignations

Battle resignation
On March 5, 2007 effective March 16, Michael A. Battle resigned his position of Director of the Executive
Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA).[58][84] On March 6, 2007, Gonzales responded to the controversy
in an op-ed in USA Today in which he wrote:
"To be clear, [the firing] was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management what have
been referred to broadly as "performance-related" reasons that seven U.S. attorneys were asked
to resign last December.... We have never asked a U.S. attorney to resign in an effort to retaliate
against him or her or to inappropriately interfere with a public corruption case (or any other type of
case, for that matter). Like me, U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and we all serve at the
pleasure of the president. If U.S. attorneys are not executing their responsibilities in a manner that
furthers the management and policy goals of departmental leadership, it is appropriate that they be
replaced...While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost
my confidence. I hope that this episode ultimately will be recognized for what it is: an overblown
personnel matter."[20]
Sampson resignation
On March 12, 2007, Sampson resigned from the Department of Justice.[57]
On March 13, Gonzales stated in a news conference that he accepted responsibility for mistakes made in the
dismissal and rejected calls for his resignation that Democratic members of Congress had been making. He also
stood by his decision to dismiss the attorneys, saying "I stand by the decision and I think it was the right
decision".[57] Gonzales admitted that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been
communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials,[85][86] and said that "I never saw documents. We
never had a discussion about where things stood."
Gonzales lost more support when records subsequently challenged some of these statements. Although the
Department of Justice released 3,000 pages of its internal communications related to this issue, none of those
documents discussed anything related to a performance review process for these attorneys before they were
fired.[87] Records released on March 23 showed that on his November 27 schedule "he attended an hour-long
meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge".[88]
Executive Privilege claims

9 of 19
Page 81 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy stated that Congress has the authority to subpoena Justice
Department and White House officials including chief political advisor to the president Karl Rove and former
White House counsel Harriet Miers.[89] On March 20, President Bush declared in a press conference that his
aides would not testify under oath on the matter if subpoenaed by Congress.[90] Bush explained his position
saying,
"The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution
understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of
a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal
deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be
ill-served.... I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.... My choice is to make
sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions."[91]
Despite the President's position against aides testifying, on March 21 the House Judiciary Committee authorized
the subpoena of five Justice Department officials,[92] and on March 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee
authorized subpoenas as well.[93]
Goodling resignation
Sampson's replacement as the Attorney General's temporary chief of staff was U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Chuck Rosenberg. Rosenberg initiated a DOJ inquiry into possibly inappropriate political
considerations in Monica Goodling's hiring practices for civil service staff. Civil service positions are not
political appointments and must be made on a nonpartisan basis. In one example, Jeffrey A. Taylor, former
interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to hire a new career prosecutor, Seth Adam Meinero, in
the fall of 2006. Goodling judged Meinero too "liberal" and declined to approve the hire.[94] Meinero, a Howard
University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency,
was serving as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office. Taylor went around Goodling, and demanded
Sampson's approval to make the hire. In another example, Goodling removed an attorney from her job at the
Department of Justice because she was rumored to be a lesbian, and, further, blocked the attorney from getting
other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for.[95] Rules concerning hiring at the Justice department forbid
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On March 26, 2007, Goodling, who had helped coordinate the dismissal of the attorneys with the White House,
took leave from her job as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's liaison to the White
House.[96][97] Goodling was set to testify before Congress, but on March 26, 2007, Goodling cancelled her
appearance at the Congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.[98] On
April 6, 2007, Ms. Goodling resigned from the Department of Justice.[96]
On April 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution, by a 326 vote, authorizing lawyers for
the House to apply for a court order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony and authorizing
a subpoena for her.[99] On May 11, 2007, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order
granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her truthful testimony in the U.S. Attorney firings investigation,
stating that "Goodling may not refuse to testify, and may not refuse to provide other information, when
compelled to do so" before the Committee.[100]
Gonzales resignation
10 of 19
Page 82 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
A number of members of both houses of Congress publicly said Gonzales should resign, or be fired by Bush. On
March 14, 2007, Senator John E. Sununu (R, New Hampshire) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for
Gonzales' resignation. Sununu cited not only the controversial firings but growing concern over the use of the
USA PATRIOT Act and misuse of national security letters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[101] Calls for
his ousting intensified after his testimony on April 19, 2007. By May 16, at least twenty-two Senators and seven
Members of the House of Representatives including Senators Hillary Clinton (D, New York) and Mark Pryor
(D, Arkansas) had called for Gonzales' resignation.[102]
Gonzales submitted his resignation as Attorney General effective September 17, 2007,[103] by a letter addressed
to President Bush on August 26, 2007. In a statement on August 27, Gonzales thanked the President for the
opportunity to be of service to his country, giving no indication of either the reasons for his resignation or his
future plans. Later that day, President Bush praised Gonzales for his service, reciting the numerous positions in
Texas government, and later, the government of the United States, to which Bush had appointed Gonzales.[103]
On September 17, 2007, President Bush announced the nomination of ex-Judge Michael Mukasey to serve as
Gonzales' successor.[39]
Testimony of Sara Taylor: Claims of executive privilege
On July 11, 2007, Sara Taylor, former top aide to Karl Rove, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Throughout Taylor's testimony, she refused to answer many questions, saying "I have a very clear letter from
[White House counsel] Mr. [Fred] Fielding. That letter says and has asked me to follow the president's assertion
of executive privilege."[104] Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) dismissed the claims and warned Taylor she was
"in danger of drawing a criminal contempt of Congress citation".[104] Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) took issue
with the claim as well, telling Taylor
"You seem to be selective in the use of the presidential privilege. It seems like you're saying that,
'Yes, I'm giving you all the information I can,' when it's self-serving to the White House, but not
allowing us to have the information to make independent judgment."[104] Leahy added "I do note
your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and, to the best of your
knowledge, he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House because it
seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved."[104] He also said "It's
apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels it does not have to
explain itself to anyone, not to the people's representatives in Congress nor to the American
people."[105]
In summary, Taylor told the Senate that she
"did not talk to or meet with President Bush about removing federal prosecutors before eight of
them were fired", she had no knowledge on whether Bush was involved in any way in the firings,
her resignation had nothing to do with the controversy, "she did not recall ordering the addition or
deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired", and she refuted the testimony of Kyle
Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, that she sought "to avoid submitting a
new prosecutor, Tim Griffin, through Senate confirmation."[104][106]

11 of 19
Page 83 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
12 of 19
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Contempt of Congress charges

On July 11, 2007, as Sara Taylor testified, George Manning, the attorney to former White House Counsel Harriet
Miers, announced that Miers intended to follow the request of the Bush Administration and not appear before
the Committee the following day. Manning stated Miers "cannot provide the documents and testimony that the
committee seeks." [107]
In response to the announcement, Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Linda Snchez (D-CA)
Chair of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, released a letter saying the decision "could
subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings." Conyers wrote
"I am extremely disappointed in the White House's direction to Ms. Miers that she not even show up
to assert the privilege before the Committee. We understand that the White House has asserted
privilege over both her testimony and documents, and we are prepared to consider those claims at
tomorrow's hearing."
Snchez wrote
"It is disappointing that Ms. Miers has chosen to forego this opportunity to give her account of the
potential politicization of the justice system.", Snchez added "Our investigation has shown through extensive interviews and review of documents - that Ms. Miers played a central role in the
Bush Administration's decision to fire chief federal prosecutors. I am hopeful that Ms. Miers will
reconsider the White House's questionable assertion of executive privilege and give her testimony
on the firing of U.S. Attorneys."
On July 17, 2007 Sanchez and Conyers notified White House Counsel Fred Fielding that they were considering
the executive privilege claims concerning a "subpoena issued on June 13 to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief
of Staff, to produce documents."[108] They warned, "If those objections are overruled, you should be aware that
the refusal to produce the documents called for in the subpoena could subject Mr. Bolten to contempt
proceedings".[108] The panel ruled the claims of privilege as invalid on a party-line vote of 73.[109]
The White House has consistently refused to provide the sought-after documents but has "offered to permit
former and current aides to talk with lawmakers behind closed doorsbut without a transcript and not under
oath."[109] This offer has been rejected by the Democratic Leadership in the House as unacceptable.[109]
On July 25, 2007 the United States House Committee on the Judiciary voted along party lines 22-17 to issue
citations of Contempt of Congress to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House
Counsel Harriet Miers.[110] Committee Republicans voted against the measure, calling it "a partisan waste of
time", while Democrats said "this is the moment for Congress to rein in the administration."[110]
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said of the action,
"For our view, this is pathetic. What you have right now is partisanship on Capitol Hill that quite
often boils down to insults, insinuations, inquisitions and investigations rather than pursuing the
normal business of trying to pass major pieces of legislation...now we have a situation where there
is an attempt to do something that's never been done in American history, which is to assail the
Page 84 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
concept of executive privilege, which hails back to the administration of George Washington".[111]
Committee Chairman John Conyers said
"Unlike other disputes involving executive privilege, the president has never personally asserted privilege. The
committee has never been given a privilege log, and there is no indication the president was ever personally
involved in the termination decisions."[110] Having passed the Committee, the motion went to the full House,
where it was unlikely to receive a vote until after Congress's August recess.[110] If the measure passes the full
House, the case would be given to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. "The administration has said it
will direct federal prosecutors not to prosecute contempt charges."[110]
On February 14, 2008, the United States House of Representatives voted 22332 along party lines to pass the
contempt resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Bolten and former White House Counsel Miers.
[112][113] Most Republicans staged a walkout during the vote.
Aftermath
Subpoenas and lost emails
White House spokesman stated that some of the emails that had involved official correspondence relating to the
firing of attorneys may have been lost because they were conducted on Republican party accounts and not stored
properly. "Some official e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake the White House is aggressively
working to correct." said Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman. Stonzel said that they could not rule out the
possibility that some of the lost emails dealt with the firing of U.S. attorneys.[114] For example, J. Scott
Jennings, an aide to Karl Rove communicated with Justice Department officials "concerning the appointment of
Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released in March, 2007.
For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the
Republican National Committee, where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher."[115]
CNN reported a larger question concerning the lost e-mails: "Whether White House officials such as political
adviser Karl Rove are intentionally conducting sensitive official presidential business via non-governmental
accounts to evade a law requiring preservationand eventual disclosureof presidential records."[116]
On May 2, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Gonzales compelling
the Department of Justice to produce all email from Karl Rove regarding evaluation and dismissal of attorneys
that was sent to DOJ staffers, no matter what email account Rove may have used, whether White House,
National Republican party, or other accounts, with a deadline of May 15, 2007, for compliance. The subpoena
also demanded relevant email previously produced in the Valarie Plame controversy and investigation for the
CIA leak scandal (2003).[117]
In August 2007, Karl Rove resigned without responding to the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena claiming,
"I just think it's time to leave."[118]
Appointment of U.S. Attorneys and the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization

The President of the United States has the authority to appoint U.S. Attorneys, with the consent of the United
States Senate, and the President may remove U.S. Attorneys from office.[119] In the event of a vacancy, the
13 of 19
Page 85 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
14 of 19
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
United States Attorney General is authorized to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney. Before March 9, 2006, such
interim appointments expired after 120 days, if a Presidential appointment had not been approved by the Senate.
Vacancies that persisted beyond 120 days were filled through interim appointments made by the Federal District
Court for the district of the vacant office.[120]
The USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, signed into law March 9, 2006,
amended the law for the interim appointment of U.S. Attorneys by deleting two provisions: (a) the 120-day
maximum term for the Attorney General's interim appointees, and (b) the subsequent interim appointment
authority of Federal District Courts. With the revision, an interim appointee can potentially serve indefinitely
(though still removable by the President), if the President declines to nominate a U.S. Attorney for a vacancy, or
the Senate either fails to act on a Presidential nomination, or rejects a nominee that is different than the interim
appointee.
On June 14, 2007, President Bush signed a bill into law that re-instated the 120-day term limit on interim
attorneys appointed by the Attorney General. [16]
See also
List of federal political scandals in the United States
Prosecution of Don Siegelman in Alabama
Prosecution of Dr. Cyril Wecht in Pennsylvania
Prosecutions of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and voter
registration: Bradley Schlozman (Missouri)
Protests of Rachel Paulose appointment in Minnesota
Notes
1. "Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts
and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be
unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors." Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made'
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300776_pf.html) The Washington
Post, March 14, 2007
2. Bowermaster, David (2007-05-09). "Charges may result from firings, say two former U.S. attorneys". The Seattle
Times. Retrieved 2007-05-16.
3. Eggen, Dan; Amy Goldstein (2007-05-14). "Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals". The Washington
Post. Retrieved 2007-05-18.
4. Scelfo, Julie (2007-03-15). " 'Quite Unprecedented': Former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White explains why the firing of
eight federal prosecutors could threaten the historic independence of federal law-enforcement officials.". Newsweek.
Archived from the original on 2007-11-17. Retrieved 2007-05-28.
5. Eggen, Dan;; Paul Kane (March 14, 2007). "Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made': But Attorney General Defends Firings
of Eight U.S. Attorneys". The Washington Post. pp. A01. Retrieved 2007-05-28.
6. "Fired U.S. Attorneys". The Washington Post. 2007-03-06.
7. Montopoli, Brian (2007-03-14). "So Is This U.S. Attorney Purge Unprecedented Or Not?". Public Eye. CBS News.
Retrieved 2007-05-29.
8. Jordan, Lara Jakes; (Associated Press) (2007-09-15). "Attorney general bids farewell to Justice: Praises work of
department". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2007-09-19.
9. "An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006" (PDF). DOJ Inspector General. pp. 355358.
10. "Justice Dept. Opts Not to File Charges for Bush-Era U.S. Attorney Firings". Fox News.
11. "White House and Justice Department begin U.S. Attorney transition" (Press release). Office of the Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice. March 14, 2001.
Page 86 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
12. Gerson, Stuart M. (2007-03-14). "Inside the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys Controversy". The Washington
Post Live Online (discussion transcript). The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-29.
13. "Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys". McClatchy Newspapers. March 13, 2007.
14. Marcia Coyle (2007-04-27). "Scandal Over U.S. Attorneys' Firing Could Cloud Other Cases". The National Law
Journal.
15. Marisa Taylor; Greg Gordon (2007-01-26). "New U.S. attorneys come from Bush's inner circle". McClatchy
Newspapers. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007.
16. Eggen, Dan (June 17, 2007). "In U.S. Attorney's Offices, Help Wanted: Justice Dept. Seeking Replacements for
Departing Temporary Prosecutors". The Washington Post. pp. A04. Retrieved 2007-06-17.
17. Jane Ann Morrison (2007-01-18). "Bush administration's ouster of U.S. attorneys an insulting injustice". Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-16.
18. Marisa Taylor; Greg Gordon (2007-01-26). "Gonzales appoints political loyalists into vacant U.S. attorneys slots".
McClatchy Newspapers. Archived from the original on March 25, 2007.
19. Mark Follman (2007-04-19). "The U.S. attorneys scandal gets dirty". Salon.com. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
20. Alberto R. Gonzales (March 7, 2007). "They lost my confidence: Attorneys' dismissals were related to performance,
not to politics". USA Today. p. A10. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
21. David Johnston (2007-02-25). "Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Praised in Evaluations". The New York Times. Retrieved
2009-01-26.
22. Mike Allen (2007-03-20). "Dems' Strategy On Attorneys Takes Shape". CBS News. Retrieved 2007-03-20.
23. Lipton, Eric; David Johnston (2007-05-03). "Justice Department announces inquiry into its hiring practices". The New
York Times. pp. A18. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
24. Sheryl Gay Stolberg (March 17, 2007). "With Shifting Explanations, White House Adds to Storm". The New York
25. "Republican Support for Gonzales Erodes". The New York Times. Associated Press. March 17, 2007. Retrieved
2007-03-17.
26. Dan Eggen (March 17, 2007). "Accounts of Prosecutors' Dismissals Keep Shifting". The Washington Post. p. A01.
27. Congressional Quarterly Transcript Service (2007-04-19). "Gonzales Testifies Before Senate Panel". The Washington
28. Jordan, Lara Jakes; (Associated Press) (2007-05-15). "Gonzales: Deputy Was Pointman on Firings". The Washington
29. Scherer, Michael (2007-05-23). "McNulty hits back at Goodling". Salon. Salon.com. Retrieved 2007-05-25.
30. Jordan, Lara Jakes; (Associated Press) (2007-03-29). "Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales on firings". The Washington Post.
31. Lichtblau, Eric (2008-09-29). "U.S. appoints special prosecutor". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
32. Reilly, Ryan. "No criminal charges in US attorney firings". Main Justice. Retrieved 15 June 2016.
33. Stout, David (2007-05-23). "Ex-Gonzales Aide Testifies, 'I Crossed the Line' ". The New York Times. Retrieved
2007-05-23.
34. Cook, Theresa (2009-01-13). "Report Raps Bradley Schlozman, Former Justice Department Official, for Political
Bias". ABC News. ABC News. Retrieved 2009-02-09.
35. Eggen, Dan (2007-05-30). "Justice Dept. Widens Firings Probe". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-30.
36. Roesler, Richard (2007-05-20). "No evidence of election crime, former U.S. attorney says". The Spokesman Review.
37. "Fired U.S. attorney alleges political pressure". The Dallas Morning News. 2007-02-28. Archived from the original on
2007-05-30. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
38. Serrano, Richard (2007-06-06). "Justice Department reportedly bent rules on voter fraud charges". Los Angeles
39. Eggen, Dan; Elizabeth Williamson (September 19, 2007). "Democrats May Tie Confirmation to Gonzales Papers".
The Washington Post. pp. A10. Retrieved 2007-09-19.
40. Jordan, Lara Jakes (June 15, 2007). "Official Close to Attorney Firings Quits". Los Angeles Times.
41. Eggen, Dan (June 23, 2007). "Third-in-Command at Justice Dept. Resigns: Mercer to Leave Washington Job but Keep
U.S. Attorney's Position in Montana". The Washington Post. pp. A04. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
42. Gordon, Greg (2007-08-22). "Justice Department lawyer accused of partisanship resigns". McClatchy Washington
Bureau. McClatchy Newspapers. Retrieved 2007-08-28.
15 of 19
Page 87 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
16 of 19
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
43. Nizza, Mike (2007-08-27). "Gonzales, a Surprisingly Unexpected Resignation". The New York Times. Retrieved
2007-08-27.
44. Meyers, Steven Lee (2007-08-27). "Embattled Attorney General Resigns". The New York Times. Retrieved
2007-08-27.
45. Phillips, Kate (2007-08-27). "Gonzales Is Resigning". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-08-27.
46. Lichtblau, Eric (2008-06-17). "Grand Jury Said to Look at Attorneys' Dismissals". The New York Times. Retrieved
2008-06-19.
47. "Prosecutor to probe role of politics in attorney firings". Mcclatchydc.com. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
48. "An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006" (PDF). DOJ Inspector General. pp. 3567.
49. Weich. "Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich" (PDF). p. 5.
50. David Johnston; Eric Lipton (March 16, 2007). "Rove discussed firing U.S. attorneys earlier than he indicated, e-mails
show". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-13.
51. Jan Crawford Greenberg (2007-03-15). "E-Mails Show Rove's Role in U.S. Attorney Firings". ABC News.
52. Serrano, Richard A. (2007-03-14). "E-mails detail White House plans to oust U.S. attorneys". Los Angeles Times.
53. Eggen, Dan; John Solomon (March 13, 2007). "Firings Had Genesis in White House Ex-Counsel Miers First
Suggested Dismissing Prosecutors 2 Years Ago, Documents Show". The Washington Post. p. Page A01. Retrieved
2007-03-13.
54. Jordan, Laura Jakes (April 13, 2007). "Agency weighed prosecutors' politics". ABC News (AP). Archived from the
original on June 16, 2008. Retrieved 2007-05-21.
55. Isikoff, Michael (2007-03-19). "Fuel to the Firings". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2007-03-14. Retrieved
2007-03-12.
56. Johnston, David and Eric Lipton (2007-03-24). "Gonzales Met With Advisors on Ouster Plan". The New York Times.
57. Lara Jakes Jordan (March 13, 2007). "Gonzales: Prosecutors firings mishandled". Associated Press.
58. Hartley, Allegra (2007-03-21). "Timeline: How the U.S. Attorneys Were Fired". US News & World Report. Archived
from the original on May 28, 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-26.
59. "List of 8 dismissed U.S. prosecutors". Associated Press. March 6, 2007.
60. Q & A from Committee for Bud Cummins (http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Chair-Cummins070430.pdf) (no
date). United States House Committee on the Judiciary Retrieved May 18, 2007. (Written responses by Bud Cummins
to committee interrogatories, post-hearing.) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20070524044423/http:
//judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Chair-Cummins070430.pdf) May 24, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.
61. Taylor, Marisa. "Political interference is alleged in the sacking of a U.S. attorney", McClatchy Newspapers - February
28, 2007
62. Dolan, Maura (March 22, 2007). "Bush loyalist among fired U.S. attorneys (http://www.latimes.com/la-meryan22mar22,0,7476553,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines)," Los Angeles Times, Retrieved 2007-03-23.
63. David Bowermaster (February 7, 2007). "McKay got good review 7 months before ouster
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003562075_mckay08m.html)," Seattle Times
64. Blumenthal, Max (2007-03-20). "The Porn Plot Against Prosecutors (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402
/blumenthal)", The Nation, Retrieved 2007-03-21.
65. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs (2007-03-06). "Letter from Justice Department to Sen.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Regarding Performance of Carol Lam". ThinkProgress.org.
66. Loyalty to Bush and Gonzales Was Factor in Prosecutors Firings, E-Mail Shows (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03
/14/washington/14justice.html)
67. Lipton, Eric (March 23, 2007). "U.S. Attorney in Michigan Disputes Reason for Removal (http://www.nytimes.com
/2007/03/23/washington/23chiara.html?ref=washington&pagewanted=print)", The New York Times, Retrieved
2007-03-23.
68. "The Scales Of Justice". NATIONAL JOURNAL - News.nationaljournal.com. 2007-05-31. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
69. Kevin Johnson (2007-02-06). "Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job". USA Today.
70. The New York Times, Eric Lichtblau; "Ex-Prosecutor Says Departure Was Pressured", March 6, 2007
71. Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Pryor to Fight Administrations Effort to Circumvent Senate Confirmation Process for U.S.
Attorneys (https://web.archive.org/web/20070201014743/http://www.feinstein.senate.gov//07releases/r-usattorneybill-intro.pdf) (Press Release). Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein. January 11, 2007. Retrieved January 7, 2014.
Page 88 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
72. Thornton, Kelly; Onell R. Soto (January 12, 2007). "Job performance said to be behind White House firing". San
Diego Union Tribune.
73. Dan Eggen (2007-01-19). "Prosecutor Firings Not Political, Gonzales Says". The Washington Post. Retrieved
2007-04-16.
74. Notice of Rescheduled Committee Hearing, Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m (http://judiciary.senate.gov
/hearing.cfm?id=2516) Hearing on "Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing
the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?" United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary January 30, 2007.
Retrieved April 16, 2007. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20070228215314/http://judiciary.senate.gov
/hearing.cfm?id=2516) February 28, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.
75. Tom Brune (2007-03-31). "Schumer again takes aim on White House". Newsday.com.
76. Johnston, David (2007-05-15). "Gonzales's Deputy Quits Justice Department". The New York Times. Retrieved
2007-05-17.
77. Taylor, Marisa; Margaret Talev (2007-05-03). "Former deputy attorney general official defends fired U.S. attorneys".
McClatchy Newspapers. Retrieved 2007-05-15.
78. "MTP Transcript for Mar. 18, 2007". MSNBC Meet the Press. 2007-03-18. Retrieved 2007-04-16.
79. David Johnston (2007-02-16). "White House Is Reported to Be Linked to a Dismissal". The New York Times.
80. Adrienne Packer (2007-02-08). "U.S. attorney rebuts claim performance led to firing". Las Vegas Review Journal.
81. Dan Eggen (2007-02-09). "Fired Prosecutor Disputes Justice Dept. Allegation". The Washington Post. Retrieved
2007-04-16.
82. Michael Isikoff (2007-03-19). "Fuel to the Firings: Eight U.S. attorneys lost their jobs. Now investigators are
assessing if the dismissals were politically motivated". Newsweek. Archived from the original on March 14, 2007.
83. Mark Follman (2007-02-28). "Inside Bush's prosecutor purge".
84. David Johnston (2007-03-06). "Messenger in Prosecutors' Firings Quits". The New York Times.
85. "Transcript of Media Availability With Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales" (Press release). U.S. Department of
Justice. March 13, 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-08-25. Retrieved 2007-03-18.
86. "Prosecutor Firings Are My Bad Gonzales". New York Post. Associated Press. March 13, 2007. Archived from the
original on October 15, 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-13.
87. Ari Shapiro (2007-03-20). "E-Mails Show Justice Dept. in Damage-Control Mode". National Public Radio.
88. Lara Jakes Jordan (2007-03-26). "White House backs AG as support wanes". Associated Press. Archived from the
89. "Subpoenas target Justice; White House could be next". CNN. 2007-03-15.
90. Sheryl Gay Stolberg (March 20, 2007). "Bush Clashes With Congress on Prosecutors". The New York Times.
91. "President Bush Addresses Resignations of U.S. Attorneys - The Diplomatic Reception Room". 2007-03-20.
92. Hulse, Carl (2007-03-21). "Panel Approves Five Subpoenas on Prosecutors". The New York Times. Retrieved
2007-03-23.
93. Paul Kane (2007-03-23). "Senate Panel Approves Subpoenas for 3 Top Bush Aides". The Washington Post. Retrieved
2007-04-17.
94. Eggen, Dan; Carol D. Leonnig (2007-05-23). "Officials Describe Interference by Former Gonzales Aide". The
Washington Post. pp. A04. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
95. Shapiro, Ari (2009-02-02). "Justice Rehires Attorney Fired Amid Gay Rumor". National Public Radio. Retrieved
2009-02-02.
96. Stout, David; Johnson, David (2007-04-06). "A Top Aide to the Attorney General Resigns". The New York Times.
97. Talev, Margaret; Hutcheson, Ron; Taylor, Marisa (2007-03-26). "Gonzales aide will invoke Fifth Amendment and
refuse to testify". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2007-09-26. Retrieved 2007-04-07.
98. Dan Eggen (2007-03-26). "Gonzales's Senior Counselor Refuses to Testify". The Washington Post.
99. Gonzales aide gets immunity (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18308547/) Archived (https://web.archive.org
/web/20070429120447/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18308547/) April 29, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.
100. Dan Eggen; Paul Kane. "Judge Gives Immunity to Gonzales Aide". Washington Post. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
101. Suzanne Malveaux, Dana Bash, Ed Henry and Terry Frieden (2007-03-14). "GOP senator calls for Gonzales' head".
CNN.
17 of 19
Page 89 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
18 of 19
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
102. Dana Bash, Ed Henry, Terry Frieden and Suzanne Malveaux (2007-03-15). "Sen. Pryor: Attorney General lied to the
Senate". CNN.
103. "Bush Ally Gonzales resigns post". BBC News. 2007-08-27. Retrieved 2007-08-28.
104. Kwame Holman (July 11, 2007). "New Testimony on Fired Federal Prosecutors". PBS Newshour.
105. "Excerpts from the Sara M. Taylor hearing". Associated Press. 2007-07-11.
106. Laurie Kellman (2007-07-11). "Aide: Didn't Talk to Bush About Firings". London. Associated Press. Archived from
the original on October 25, 2007.
107. "Bush orders Miers to defy house subpoena". NBC News. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
108. Linda Snchez; John Conyers, Jr. (2007-07-17). "Conyers, Snchez Respond to RNC on Subpoena, Alerts White
House of Potential Ruling on Immunity, Privilege Claims". Archived from the original on July 25, 2007.
109. "Bush chief of staff faces possible contempt charge". Reuters. 2007-07-20.
110. Ari Shapiro (2007-07-25). "Bush Aides in Contempt; Will They Be Prosecuted?". All Things Considered. National
Public Radio.
111. "Press Briefing by Tony Snow, James S. Brady Briefing Room". 2007-07-25. The White House. Retrieved July 25,
2007.
112. Paul Kiel (2008-02-14). "House passes contempt resolution against white house officials".
113. Original text of the Letter from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Attorney General Michael Mukasey informing him of
the contempt resolution passing the House (http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/PelosiToMukasey080228.pdf)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080529013513/http://judiciary.house.gov/Media
/PDFS/PelosiToMukasey080228.pdf) May 29, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
114. "White House: E-mails on firings may have been killed". Reuters. 2007-04-11.
115. Scott Higham; Robert O'Harrow Jr (2007-03-26). "GSA Chief Is Accused of Playing Politics: Doan Denies 'Improper'
Use of Agency for GOP". The Washington Post. p. A01.
116. "Leahy: Aides lying about White House-Justice e-mails". CNN. 2007-04-12.
117. Lahey, Patrick Rove Email Subpeona (http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/doj/sjc50207rovesmailsubpoena.pdf)
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary' (via Findlaw) May 2, 2007. Retrieved May 8, 2007.
118. "Bush Adviser Karl Rove to Resign at End of Month". FOXNews.com. 2007-08-13. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
119. 28 U.S.C. 541 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/541)
120. 28 U.S.C. 546 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/546) (U.S. Code prior to amendments of the USA
PATRIOT Act, as of the retrieval date March 15, 2007.)
References and external links

Resignation letters and emails, and other related documents hosted by WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/public
/resources/documents/DOJDocsPt10-1070319.pdf)
Taylor, Marissa; Margaret Talev (2007-06-18). "A Q&A for the U.S. Attorneys saga". McClatchy
Washington Bureau. McClatchy Newspapers. Archived from the original on June 2, 2008. Retrieved
2007-06-20.
The Washington Post in-depth coverage site on firings: "Special Reports: U.S. Attorney Firings
Investigation". The Washington Post. 2007-03-05. Retrieved 2010-05-01.
Inside the U.S. Attorneys Emails: Major Players and Themes (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources
/documents/info-retro_DOJemails_070319.html) Wall Street Journal (review of the most significant of the
emails).
Allegra Hartley Timeline: How the U.S. Attorneys Were Fired (https://web.archive.org
/web/20110604230812/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070321/21attorneystimeline_print.htm) U.S. News & World Report April 18, 2007.
Articles and books
Eggen, Dan (January 19, 2007). "Prosecutor Firings Not Political, Gonzales Says". The Washington Post. pp. Page
A02.
Eisenstein, James. Counsel for the United States: U.S. Attorneys in the Political and Legal Systems. Baltimore. Johns
Page 90 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
19 of 19
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Hopkins University Press. 1978.

Iglesias, David with Davin Seay. In Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked the Bush Administration. Hoboken, New
Jersey. Wiley, 2008. ISBN 978-0-470-26197-2.
Johnston, David (January 17, 2007). "Justice Dept. Names New Prosecutors, Forcing Some Out". The New York
Times.
Kane, Paul; Dan Eggen (March 9, 2007). "Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys". The Washington Post.
pp. Page A01. Article on the hearings.
"Dems Seek Testimony From Fired Attorneys". NBC News. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
McKay, John. Train Wreck at the Justice Department: An Eyewitness Account (http://papers.ssrn.com
/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1028545). Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 31, p. 265, 2008
Vicini, James (March 13, 2007). "Justice aide resigns over prosecutor firings". Reuters. Wire article on Congressional
supoenas issued to attorneys.
Whitford, Andrew B. "Bureaucratic Discretion, Agency Structure, and Democratic Responsiveness: The Case of the
United States Attorneys." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 12, No. 1: 3-27 (2002). Public
Management Research Association.
US Attorneys controversy references

Spotlight Profiles of the Gonzales Seven, plus One ePluribus Media (http://www.epluribusmedia.org
/features/2007/gonzales_7_backgrounds.html)
United States Attorneys (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects
/u/united_states_attorneys/index.html) The New York Times
The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok
(http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html) ePluribus Media
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy&
oldid=729394985"
Categories: Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy
Investigations and hearings of the United States Congress Political scandals in the United States Patriot Act
110th United States Congress 2006 in American politics 2006 in law 2006 controversies
George W. Bush administration controversies
This page was last modified on 11 July 2016, at 22:20.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Page 91 of 107

8/31/2016 3:45 AM
US Attorney Patrick Meehan announces resignation
1 of 2
http://www.timesherald.com/article/JR/20080707/TMP01/307079977&...
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
The Times Herald (http://www.timesherald.com)
By JOANN LOVIGLIO
Monday, July 7, 2008
PHILADELPHIA - U.S. Attorney Patrick L. Meehan, who as chief prosecutor for southeastern Pennsylvania
cracked down on government corruption in Philadelphia, announced his resignation on Monday.
Meehan, named by President Bush as chief prosecutor for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania nearly seven
years ago, said at a Monday afternoon news conference that he plans to go into private practice after his
resignation takes effect July 15.
The Republican has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Pennsylvania governor in 2010. On Monday,
he said he didn't want to discuss whether he was considering a gubernatorial run.
Meehan said his top priority was preparing the office for the transition and getting himself acclimated to his
new job. He said it's not unnatural that he would leave the office now, given that he's among the longest
tenured of President Bush's appointed prosecutors.
Meehan was sworn into his current post in 2001, six days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a day before
the anthrax-by-mail scare began. He oversees an office of some 200 lawyers who handle all the civil and
criminal federal cases in Philadelphia and eight other southeastern Pennsylvania counties.
Meehan's tenure saw more than a dozen convictions stemming from a federal probe that became public when
police discovered an FBI bug in then-Mayor John F. Street's office in October 2003. Street was never
charged, but several confidants, two bank executives and the city treasurer were put away.
Meehan's office is also prosecuting one of the state Senate's most powerful figures, outgoing Democratic Sen.
Vincent Fumo.
His office has named among its priorities the protection of children from online predators and the elderly
from substandard nursing homes and predatory lenders. Other initiatives have include prosecuting identity
theft and cracking down on gang activity and illegal gun trafficking.
Meehan said his tenure was among the longest in the district's history. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Laurie
Magid will take over as acting U.S. Attorney.
Meehan was elected Delaware County district attorney in 1995.
Early in his tenure, he was thrust into the prosecution of high-profile murder suspect John DuPont. Heir to his
family's multimillion-dollar chemical fortune, DuPont was convicted of the 1996 shooting death of Olympic
gold medal-winning wrestler David Schultz.
Page 92 of 107

8/31/2016 3:49 AM
2 of 2
http://www.timesherald.com/article/JR/20080707/TMP01/307079977&...
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Meehan received his undergraduate degree from Bowdoin College, where he was a hockey standout, and was
a National Hockey League on-ice official for several years.
He graduated from Temple University law school. Before becoming a prosecutor, he worked as a corporate
lawyer and an aide to U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
He ran high-profile statewide election campaigns including Specter's 1992 Senate win and U.S. Sen. Rick
Santorum's upset victory in 1994.
___
On the Net:
Meehan bio: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/usa.html
URL: http://www.timesherald.com
2016 The Times Herald (http://www.timesherald.com)
Page 93 of 107

8/31/2016 3:49 AM
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
United States Attorney Patrick L. Meehan

On September 17, 2001, Patrick L. Meehan was sworn in as United
States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The United
States Attorneys Office, located in Philadelphia, is comprised of over
200 attorneys and support staff. During his first year as U.S.
Attorney, under an Executive Order from President Bush, Mr. Meehan
formed the Anti-Terrorism Task Force (ATTF) to combat and prevent
future terrorist attacks. The ATTF, later renamed the Anti-Terrorism
Advisory Council (ATAC), in the Eastern District is a coordinated
partnership among federal, state, and local law enforcement and
emergency responders and is recognized as a national model.
In addition to its work in counter-terrorism, the U.S. Attorneys Office,
under Mr. Meehans leadership, has been nationally recognized for its
work in combating violent crime. In implementing the Presidents
Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative, Mr. Meehan has obtained unprecedented cooperation
among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies throughout the district. Specifically, in
partnership with the nine elected district attorneys in region, Mr. Meehans office has adopted
cases against some of the most violent criminals in the district for federal prosecution. These
prosecutions have led to average prison sentences of almost nine years -- far more severe than
had those same cases been prosecuted locally.
Most recently, Mr. Meehan developed what is now called the Route 222 Corridor Anti-Gang
Initiative. Local elected officials, federal, state, and local law enforcement, along with community
and faith based organizations have come together to prevent and fight the insurgence of gangs in
an area spanning five cities and four counties in rural and industrial parts of the district. The
program calls for a coordinated response among law enforcement, along with an increase in
prevention programs in schools and community organizations, plus specialized services for former
inmates returning to their neighborhoods.
Mr. Meehan has made the protection of children, senior citizens, and the disadvantaged a top
priority in his office. Not only has the office prosecuted many of those who prey on children via
the Internet, but Mr. Meehan has convened dozens of community forums to educate parents on
how they can protect their children from becoming victims. The office has also prosecuted nursing
homes and elder care facilities for failing to provide the required services to senior citizens, and
has brought cases against predatory lenders who prey on senior citizens and disadvantaged
homeowners. In addition, the office continues its nationally recognized work in healthcare fraud
and has achieved total settlements of over half a billion dollars the last two years with several of
the nations largest pharmaceutical companies and pharmacy benefit managers.
In the area of corporate fraud, Mr. Meehan was invited by President Bush to serve on the
Corporate Fraud Task Force. The Task Force provides direction for the investigation and
prosecution of everything from securities and accounting fraud to related financial crimes
committed by CEOs and employees. Mr. Meehan has also served on the White Collar Fraud
subcommittee of the Attorney Generals Advisory Committee and remains dedicated to bringing
cases against public officials who illegally use their office for personal gain.
Mr. Meehans career in public service began in 1995 when he was elected District Attorney of
Delaware County, Pennsylvania. His tenure as District Attorney was highlighted by a number of
community-based initiatives. He created the Special Victims Unit for Domestic Violence, which
Page 94 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
insured that prosecutions could proceed without requiring the victim to testify. This encouraged
victims to apply for protection from abuse orders. Mr. Meehan was instrumental in expanding the
number of Youth Aid Panels for first time offenders and in establishing a truancy project to cut
daytime crime. Mr. Meehans efforts led to the establishment of the Department of Justices
Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force here in Pennsylvania.
Prior to being elected District Attorney, Mr. Meehan served as senior counsel and executive
director for United States Senator Arlen Specter, and worked as an associate with the law firm of
Dilworth Paxson. He earned a B.A. in 1978 from Bowdoin College and his J.D. from Temple
University School of Law in 1986. Mr. Meehan grew up in Cheltenham, Pennsylvania, and
currently resides in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania.
Page 95 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
About The Office

The United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is one of
the largest in the country with 134 Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) currently
on staff. There are 121 non-attorney positions in the office. The USAO is located at 615
Chestnut Street in downtown Philadelphia. The office is divided into three divisions:
Criminal, Civil and Organized Crime Strike Force.

Financial Institution Fraud
Government and Health Care Fraud
Firearms
Violent Crime, Terrorism and Immigration
Frauds
Computer Crimes
Criminal Division
The Criminal division is the largest group of attorneys in the office. The division
consists of 93 Assistant United States Attorneys. For management purposes, the
Criminal Division is divided into eight teams. Each team has a team leader who also
serves as the chief of cases in a particular subject. Attorneys in the Criminal Division
are assigned to teams and the team leader serves as an administrative head of the
team. Our criminal assistants are generalists within all areas of criminal law.
The team leaders also serve as subject matter chiefs. They maintain expertise in these
areas and maintain relationships with the investigative agencies in their subject
matter. The sections are:
Narcotics
Official Corruption, Tax Fraud and Civil Rights
Firearms
Violent Crime, Terrorism and Immigration Fraud
Fraud
Computer Crimes
The Criminal Division also includes approximately 51 Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys
assigned from other federal agencies and local prosecutor's offices to handle firearms
offenses and other rmatters.
Civil Division
Page 96 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
The Civil Division consists of 25 attorneys. They represent the United States in civil
actions, both defensive and affirmative. The affirmative litigation work includes fraud
on the government, such as health care fraud, and environmental enforcement.
Because the Eastern District has a large number of federal facilities, the office has a
defense practice that includes all varieties of personal injury, including medical
malpractice, Title VII litigation and defense of government agency action. Attorneys in
the Civil Division do both affirmative and defensive litigation.
Please go to the following links to learn more about our Civil Division: Affirmative Civil
Enforcement, Predatory Lending, Whistleblower suits, Elder Abuse.

The responsibility in the U.S. Attorney's Office for dealing with both traditional and
certain non-traditional organized criminal groups is assigned to the Organized Crime
Strike Force Division ("Strike Force"). Consistent with the Department of Justice's
National policy on organized crime, the Strike Force has the responsibility in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinating federal invetigations and prosecutions
in cases related to, and involving, the following criminal organizations: 1) La Cosa
Nostra; 2) Eastern European/Russian organized crime groups; 3) Asian organized
crime groups; and 4) criminal organizations orginating in Italy, including the Sicilian
Mafia, the Camorra, and the N'drangheta. The Strike Force also handles "special
circumstance" investigations that are assigned to it by the U.S. Attorney with the
concurrence of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. Included within the
Strike Force's assignment are the coordination and development of cases involving
human trafficking (the human trafficking assignment potentially cuts across both Asian
and Eurasian organized crime) and investigations of outlaw motorcycle gangs.
The Strike Force consists of 12 attorneys headed by a Chief and Assistant Chief. The
staffing is augmented occasionally by Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys from local,
state and federal agencies who work under the umbrella of the Organized Crime
Division. The use of "special attorneys" underscores the advantage of cooperative law
enforcement when investigating and prosecuting organized crime groups.

The Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Section prosecutes violations of federal narcotics
laws including the illegal trafficking of cocaine, crack, heroin, methamphetamine and
other controlled substances. Federal prosecutions focus in particular on the
importation of illegal narcotics, interstate, large-scale or organized drug trafficking, or
individuals or groups that use violence in the course of drug dealing. State and local
authorities, such as the Philadelphia Police and the Philadelphia District Attorney's
Office, prosecute the vast majority of narcotics offenders. This office focuses its efforts
on international, interstate and organized drug offenders, coordinating its efforts with
the state and local authorities. The United States Attorney's Office also prosecutes
cases involving the diversion of prescription drugs for illegal sale.
Page 97 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
The United States Attorney's Office participates in Weed & Seed, a program designed
to create a partnership between law enforcement and community groups to improve
neighborhoods. For more information on the Weed & Seed program, go to the
following link - Weed & Seed - or contact William Hausmann of the U.S. Attorney's
Office at (215) 861-8274.
Criminal prosecutions brought by this office are most often investigated by one of the
following federal agencies, frequently acting together with state and local authorities:
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 215-861-3474

Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) 215-418-4000
Immigration and Customs Enforcement 215-597-4305
United States Postal Inspection Service 215-895-8450
If anyone has information regarding narcotics trafficking, please contact Thomas

Perricone, Chief of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section at (215) 861-8419, or one
of the federal agencies listed above. The Philadelphia Police Department drug hotline
is (215) 686-3784.

The Financial Institution Fraud Section is responsible for prosecuting a broad spectrum
of bank fraud acts and schemes designed to profit persons both inside and outside and
institution. The Section also investigates/prosecutes crime in other related areas.
Prosecutions supervised by the Financial Institution Fraud Section include:
1. Bank Fraud - Major bank fraud matters include check kites, false loans,
embezzlement and misapplication of bank funds by insiders, counterfeit, stolen
and forged checks.
Federal Agencies:
FBI (215) 418-4000
U.S. Secret Service (215) 861-3300
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) (202) 416-2912
2. Credit Card Fraud - FBI / U.S. Secret Service / U.S. Postal Inspection Service
(215) 895-8450
3. Counterfeit Currency - U.S. Secret Service
4. Food Stamp Fraud - Department of Agriculture (610) 337-2237
5. Money Laundering - FBI / U.S. Secret Service
ICE (215) 597-4305
U.S. Postal Inspection Service
6. Immigration and Passport Fraud - BCBP (215) 597-4606
State Department (215) 861-3370
7. Communications Fraud - U.S. Secret Service - Clone Phone
8. Identity Theft - FBI / U.S. Secret Service / U.S. Postal / Social Security I.G.
For more information about Identity Theft, go to the following link: Identity
Theft
The Chief of the Financial Institution Fraud is Richard Goldberg who may be contacted
Page 98 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
at (215) 861-8439.

The Government Fraud, Health Care Fraud, and Environmental Crimes Section
oversees federal criminal prosecutions of offense such as:
Major health care fraud matters involving false billings and other schemes that
victimize patients, the Food and Drug Administration, health care providers,
private insurers and government insurers such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Frauds committed against agencies of the Department of Defense, or other
government buyers, by suppliers of materials in fulfillment of government
contracts
Thefts and frauds involving government programs, including workmen's
compensation, social security, housing, and similar programs administered by
other government agencies
Fraudulent violations of Department and Agriculture laws prohibiting the sale of
adulterated foods
Crimes against the United States Postal Service, including thefts,
embezzlements and threats against postal employees
In appropriate cases involving health care fraud and fraud on government agencies,
the criminal division coordinates with the office's Affirmative Civil Enforcement
Program.
If anyone has information regarding health care fraud, a fraud involving a government
program, or an environmental crime, please contact Catherine Votaw, the Chief of the
Government and Health Care Fraud Section, at (215) 861-8303. In addition, the FBI,
or the Office of the Inspector General of Health and Human Services, (215) 861-4586,
may be contacted.

The Official Corruption, Tax Fraud and Civil Rights Section handles the following
matters:
All major public official corruption involving local, state and federal officials,
including bribery, kickbacks and extortion
All police corruption
Tax offenses and crimes that undermine the integrity of the Internal Revenue
Service and its programs, including IRS employee theft and robbery
Corruption, theft and racketeering by labor leaders and pension fund
administrators/trustees
The interstate theft/transportation of goods and operations involving
automobile theft/replating or chop shops
The unlicensed export of military articles of high technology to foreign
governments
Page 99 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Civil Rights Violations
If any information exists concerning the activity involving any of these types of
offenses, please contact Mike Schwartz, Chief of the Corruption, Labor Racketeering
and Tax Section at (215) 861-8923.
Firearms
The Firearms Section prosecutes the violations of federal laws in the following subject
matters:
Firearms and Explosives
Unlicensed sale of firearms, ammunition and explosives

Convicted felons in possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives
False statements in the acquisition of firearms, ammunition and explosives
Possessing/using/carrying firearms or explosives in federal crimes of violence
or drug trafficking
Project Safe Neighborhood falls under this section. This is a cooperative effort
with local law enforcement to reduce gun violence and improve community
safety throughout our district
To report a violation of these types of offenses, please contact a federal agent at the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) at one of the following
telephone numbers:
Firearms - Convicted felons possessing firearms: (215) 717-4749

Illegal sale of firearms without a license, false statements to acquire a firearm:
(215) 717-4801
The Chief of the Firearms Section is Richard Barrett, (215) 861-8420.
Violent Crimes, Terrorism & Immigration

The Violent Crimes Terrorism and Immigrations Section investigates crimes which
jeopardize public safety: bank robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, terrorism, extortion,
and arson. Cases in this area are investigated by a federal agency, such as FBI, USSS,
ICE, and ATF.
This section coordinates the federal law response to International and Domestic
terrorism threats and directs the state, federal and local, Anti Terrorism Task Force
(ATTF). Allegations about crimes in this section should be made first to the federal
investigatory agencies or a local police department if there is an immediate threat to
public safety. The Chief of the Violent Crimes, Terrorism & Immigrations Section is
David Webb and he can be reached at (215) 861-8450.
Frauds
Page 100 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
The Consumer and Commercial Fraud Section oversees federal criminal prosecution of
offenses such as:
Consumer fraud, including telemarketing fraud, sweepstakes and premiums

fraud, fraud by businesses against customers
Securities fraud, including embezzlement by brokers, insiders trading, and false
statements or promises to investors
Investment fraud in investments other than securities, stocks and bonds,
including franchise fraud, business investments and fictitious charity
solicitations
Computer fraud, including use of the internet to commit fraud
Copyright, trademark and trade secret fraud
Insurance fraud, including fictitious accidents, false medical claims and fraud
insurance companies against policy holders
Bankruptcy fraud, including diversion of assets by trustees or debtors and false
statements to the bankruptcy court
Commercial fraud, including fraud against businesses and large thefts of funds
by corporate insiders
In addition to laws prohibiting specific unlawful activity, broad federal statutes protect
against fraud, making any fraudulent scheme a federal crime if the United States mail
or a courier service is used in its commission, or if interstate wire transfers, telephone
calls, fax transmissions, e-mails or other interstate communications are used in the
fraud.
If anyone has information regarding frauds, please call the U.S. Attorney's Office,
Fraud Section, at (215) 861-8570. Peter Schenck is the Chief of the Fraud Section.
The FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service may also be contacted at the telephone
numbers previously listed.
Computer Crimes
Computer Crimes Section focuses on the ever-growing area of internet crime;
computer intrusions, denial of service attacks, theft of intellectual property and child
exploitation. Cases are primarily investigated by the FBI, United States Secret Service,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Postal Service.
Information on how to contact those agencies can be found on this website under
"How to Report a Crime." The Chief of Computer Crimes, Michael L. Levy, can be
reached at (215) 861-8599.
Page 101 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
2004 CRIME VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS

The Victim Witness Assistance Unit of the United States Attorneys Office provides services for
victims and witnesses of federal crimes. Our staff provide case status information, education
regarding the federal criminal justice system, court accompaniment, crisis intervention, referrals
to various social service organizations in the county, state and other federal agencies.
It is our goal to ensure that crime victims and witnesses are afforded their rights as well as
ensure their treated fairly during the prosecution process.
Victims Rights
Federal crime victims* have the following rights, as set forth in the Justice for All
Act of 2004, U.S.C. $ 3711:
(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court
proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or
escape of the accused.
(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the
court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by
the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that
proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the
case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity
and privacy.
We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described.
You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to these rights, Section
3771(c)(2).
* According to the act, a victim is a person directly and proximately
harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an
offense in the District o Columbia. In the case of a crime victim who
is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased,
Page 102 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
the legal guardians of the crime victim or representatives of the

crime victims estate, family members, or any other persons
appointed suitable by the court, may assume the crime victims right
under this chapter, but in no event shall the defendant be named as
such guardian or representative.
Crime Victims Compensation

If you are a victim who was injured during a crime you may be eligible to file a
claim with the PENNSYLVANIA CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION BOARD (CVCB) for
uninsured ir unreimbursable medical expense. any . The CVCB accepts claims for
unreimbursed medical expenses and/or loss of wages that are incurred as a direct
result of a crime.
ELIGIBILITY
The crime must have occurred in Pennsylvania.

The crime must have been reported to the proper authorities
(police/hospital) within 72 hours of the incident or a Protection from Abuse
Order was filed within three days.
You must have incurred at least $100.00 of unreimbursed medical expenses
and/or loss of wages as a direct result of the incident.
You must cooperate with law enforcement authorities.
You must file your claim within one (1) year of the date of the incident, or 2
years if you can show good cause.
TYPES OF EXPENSES REIMBURSED
Medical Expenses - Medical, dental and other expenses related to the

injury (including physical therapy, medications, home health care, medical
equipment and transportation costs to medical and counseling
appointments).
Counseling - If a crime results in death, the spouse, children, parents or
siblings who, at the time of the crime, lived in the same house as the victim
are eligible for compensation for counseling expenses. In other crimes,
compensation for counseling covers only the victim.
Loss of Earnings or Support - If deprived of earnings as a result of injury
received in a crime incident, the victim may be paid for such loss provided
all requirements are met. If deprived of support due to the death of a victim
as a result of a crime incident, you may be eligible for compensation.
Loss of Benefits - If Social Security, veterans retirement, railroad
retirement, pensions/retirement, disability, or court ordered child/spousal
support is the main source of income and the loss occurs through robbery,
assault, rape, homicide, kidnapping or burglary, you may be compensated
within certain limits.
Funeral Expenses - If you paid or are liable to pay the funeral bill for a
deceased victim, you may be compensated for loss, within certain limits.
Crime-scene Cleanup
Relocation Assistance
Page 103 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
The maximum claim allowed by law is $ 35,000. Compensation for lost earnings
may not exceed $15,000 and for loss of support in the event of the victims death
$20,000.
Victims Compensation Program

Office of Victims Services
Pennsylvania Commission
on Crime and Delinquency
P. O. Box 1167
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17108-1167
Telephone
(800) 233-2339 or (717) 783-5153
Fax (717) 787-4306
www.pccd.state.pa.us
Case Information
If you are a victim of a federal crime charged and filed in this district, we can notify
you of:
1. the arrest of a suspected offender;

2. the nature of the charges against a suspected offender;
3. the scheduling of each court proceeding that you are either required or
entitled to attend;
4. the pre-trial release on bail or detention status of a suspected offender;

5. the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of a
verdict after trial; and
6. the sentence imposed on an offender.
If you have any questions, please contact our Victim Witness Coordinator at
215.861.8200.
Information re: U.S. v. Arthur Toll, Bruce Edmundson and Elliot

Fisher [Regal Communications - Securities Fraud]
Information re: U.S. v. Capell and Buttery: Press Release; and
Indictment
Information re: U.S. v. Melvin D. Shaw: Press Release; and
Indictment
Information re: U.S. v. Thomas Massara: Press Release; and
Indictment
Information re: U.S. v. Norman Shapiro, Howard Coff, Marc
Feldman.: Press Release; and Indictment
Page 104 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Victim/Witness Resources
*NOTE: The following organizations are some, but not all, of the organizations
available to assist crime victims. No such organization is affiliated with or endorsed
by the United States Attorney's Office and you should independently consider and
assess any services that such organizations and others may offer.
General Victim/Witness Resources
National Organization for Victim Assistance

1.800.TRY-NOVA
National Center for Victims of Crime
1.800.FYI.CALL
Pennsylvania Crime Victim Assistance Bureau
1.800.233.2339
Fraud
U. S. Social Security Administration

1.800.269.0271
National Fraud Information Center
1.800.876.7060
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
619.298.3396
Pennsylvania Real Estate Service
1.877.366.8257
Children
Childhelp USA (Child Abuse Hotline)

1.800.4A.CHILD
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
1.800.843.5678
National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect
1.800.394.3366
Children's Advocacy Center
321.387.9500
Children's Crisis Treatment Center
215.496.0707
St. Gabriel's System
(Serves children and teenagers who are victimes of crime.)
215.665.8777
Support Center for Child Advocacy
(Child Abuse and Neglect, Medically Needy Children, Kids'n Kin, Adoption)
215.925.1913
Women/Family
Page 105 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Battered Women's Justice Project

1.800.903.0111 ext. 3
National Domestic Violence Hotline
1.800.799.SAFE
Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network
1.800.656.4673
Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Child Protection and Custody
1.800.527.3233
Family Violence Prevention Fund/Health Resource Center
1.800.313.1310
Women Against Abuse
215.686.7082 (Legal Center)
215.386.7777 (Hotline)
Women in Transition
215.564.5301
215.751.1111 (Hotline)
Women Organized Against Rape
215.985.3315
215.985.3333 (Hotline)
Lutheran Settlement House/Bilingual Domestic Violence Project
215.426.8610 (English/Spanish)
Congreso De Latinos Unidos
215.978.1174 (Domestic Violence Hotline)
Rape and Crime Victims/Trauma Survivors Program Center for the
Treatment and Study of Anxiety
215.898.0602
Seniors
National Elder Care Locator Services Hotline

1.800.677.1116
Action Alliance Elderly Victim Assistance Program
215.557.0756
Commission on Services for the Aging
215.686.3505
Philadelphia Corporation for Aging
215.765.9040
Center for Advocacy for the Rights and Interests of the Elderly (CARIE)
215.545.5728
Philadelphia Corporation for the Aging/Older Adult Protective Services
215.765.9033
Legal Services
Legal Service Corp.

202.336.8800
Community Legal Service
215.981.3700
Crime Victims' Legal Center
215.772.7680
Philadelphia Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service
215.722.5850
Page 106 of 107
One
OneofofThe
TheFirst
FirstISC
ISCContracts
Page 107 of 107

SHHHH - Alberto Gonzales - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SHHHH - Alberto Gonzales - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

One

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

American Civil Liberties Union, American

Case No. 2006-cv-2095

BRIEF ON BEHALF OF AMICI CURIAE STANLEY J. CATERBONE

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ......................3

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMICI CURIAE STANLEY J. CATERBONE AND

Stanley J. Caterbone was a whistle-blower and

The Central Intelligence Agency is confirmed to have been involved in a covert

Whistle-Blowers ensure that the rule of law is

Without the proper oversight and judicial

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURIAE

Each bomb carries hundreds of smaller bomlets, something like hand

Authorities believe he used the plans to

build the cluster bombs in Chile, then he shipped them to Iraq.

This letter says Cardoens company is

Bedouin is suing his former boss for commission payments.

So the Iraq President could mass-produce his own cluster

whether that plant is totally out of commission.

Experts say bureaucratic infighting regularly causes such lapses.

The Departments of Commerce,

can be passed to correct this.

As a human being I believe that

ABC News Nightline - September 12, 1991

But the CIA concedes, off-the-books activities, are not documented.

deniability can be preserved.

ABC News Nightline - July 1991

At a factory 500 miles north of Santiago, Cardoen produced tens of

and with the help of the CIA.

significance of that Presidential Finding in a moment.

Once the White House has authorized the Covert Assistance

But during this last set of

That, said one Senator on

All of these things

We were told by Mr. Kloskey that the White

The White House, as we have all heard

after other witnesses have

We were told that he went out because he wanted to give his

The meeting lasted approximately 4 hours at the residence of

Caterbone, ISC Shareholder; Founder Executive Vice President of Financial

Caterbone, ISC Shareholder; Founder Executive Vice President of Financial

Caterbone, ISC Shareholder; Founder Executive Vice President of Financial

I know right now in this town's

Lucy A. Dalglish, Esq.

Date: February 20, 2007

THANK YOU FOR SHOPPN

4:14 PM 0041201 0129 225

A l l sales f i n a l on stamps and postage.

Stan J. Caterbone and U.S. Attorneys

Wednesday August 31, 2016

Stan J. Caterbone and U.S. Attorneys

Wednesday August 31, 2016

March 19, 2007

United States District Court

Stan J. Caterbone and U.S. Attorneys

Wednesday August 31, 2016

Lancaster New Era: Dems' inaction on FISA harmful

Lancaster New Era

Stan J. Caterbone and U.S. Attorneys

Wednesday August 31, 2016

Lancaster New Era: Dems' inaction on FISA harmful

PO Box 1328, Lancaster PA 17608, (717) 291-8811