Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007

Floor Speech

PRESERVING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - March 19, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his courtesy in allowing me to proceed.

I rise to commend Chairman Leahy of our Judiciary Committee, and Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, my senior Senators on that committee, for their very deep concern about the politicization of the Department of Justice by the Bush administration.

As you know, I am new to this body, but having served as Rhode Island's U.S. attorney for 4 years, I want to share some thoughts based on that experience.

First, I want to point out that even if everything the administration has said about their firing of these U.S. attorneys were true--and we certainly have cause to doubt that--there is still a very real concern here that merits the attention of this body over the independence of the U.S. attorneys.

My experience convinces me--and it convinces me firmly--that Main Justice and the U.S. attorneys in the field check and balance each other in a way that is very healthy for the administration of justice in this country. Even if the mass firings--the purge of U.S. attorneys--had been done to punish policy differences with the Department of Justice, the firings would still defeat that healthy check and balance.

Bear in mind that nothing has been shown that suggests the exercise of graduated discipline one would expect in any kind of a well-managed setting. For instance, Carol Lam was ostensibly fired for not prosecuting enough low-level immigration cases. But when she was here testifying before us, she testified she was not told that when she was fired; nor, evidently, was she ever told beforehand this issue was a serious problem for her or that it might cost her job.

Even enemy ships usually get a warning shot. So the message of these firings to the U.S. attorneys from the Bush administration is this: You serve at our whim. You displease us at your peril. A sudden firing awaits you if you cross us.

That is a very bad message to send in the context of this traditional balance. Intimidation by purge is a tactic far better suited for a Soviet ministry of justice than for the U.S. Department of Justice--that is, if everything they have said is true, which brings us now to the question of the Department of Justice telling the truth.

Let me start by saying, as I have said to the Attorney General directly, unless you are first a department of truth, you will never be a Department of Justice. Without truth, there can be no justice. We know already--because they have admitted it--the Department of Justice came before the Senate days ago and told us things that were not true. We also know they have said things that are inconsistent. They have not yet told us which statement is true and which statement is not true, but they have said things that cannot both be true. At least one must inevitably be false.

We also know they have said things that boggle the imagination. Perhaps they are true, but it seems mighty unlikely.

The big question within this shameful cloud of admitted falsehood, inevitable falsehood, and probable falsehood is this: What truth hides behind the bodyguard of lies? Is it this: U.S. attorneys who prosecuted public corruption cases against Republicans or those who did not bring public corruption cases against Democrats were terminated with extreme political prejudice? Is that what made them fail the Department of Justice test that they be ``loyal Bushies''? Is that what made Carol Lam a ``real problem'' for the Department of Justice on the day Republican corruption indictments were announced?

Like dead flesh that must be excised before a wound can heal, like rotten wood that must be scraped away before rebuilding can begin, the cloud of falsehood that now wraps around the Department of Justice must be dispelled. It must first, again, become a department of truth or else it can never again be our American Department of Justice. We cannot tolerate a Department of Justice or an Attorney General who will not give the complete truth and face the consequences.

I think at least three questions must be pursued by the Judiciary Committee or, if and when necessary, the entire Senate.

One, let's review authoritatively the historic relationship between U.S. attorneys and the Department of Justice, if necessary with expert assistance from historians and input from U.S. attorneys who served in past administrations.

The President of the United States has said this selective mass firing of U.S. attorneys is--this is his quote--``customary practice.'' As a former U.S. attorney myself, I believe that statement by the President of the United States to be false. His own Department of Justice officials seem to have conceded in their e-mail traffic that it is false. But let's take a thorough look because--I should not have to state the obvious--our President should not be saying things that are not true and also because that historic balance between independent U.S. attorneys serving in the field, in their districts, before their judges, and knowing their communities, against the group here in Washington that runs Main Justice, that historic balance has value which should not be destroyed.

Two, let's get the full, exact, unvarnished truth of what happened, and let's fix accountability for things that were said that were false. Falsehood has no place within the halls of the Department of Justice. Whatever needs to be done to dispel the clouds of falsehood, we must do.

Three, if, indeed, the worst is to be feared and this Department has infected its pursuit of political corruption with partisan bias, let's find that out. Let's start by looking at the cold, hard, numerical statistics on public corruption matters under this administration, again with expert help, if necessary, and certainly with full regard for the confidentiality of such investigations, and let's see what the factual record is and what it suggests. We can then proceed as necessary.

God forbid this should be so, but the air is thick with reasonable suspicion which must be laid to rest, and if the worst should prove true, God forbid the Senate fail in its duty to preserve, protect, and defend the integrity of our Government where its integrity should least be questioned--in the U.S. Department of Justice.

I look forward to working with my learned colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to do whatever is necessary to restore the honor and credibility of a once-proud department and the tradition of its able and independent U.S. attorney corps. In the meantime, I hope we will all support Senator Feinstein's commendable legislation, S. 214, to close the PATRIOT Act loophole that may have invigorated the Bush administration in its unprecedented assault on the U.S. attorney corps.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source