White House Retroactively Devised Ruse Story of Firing All 93 US Attornys
The President and White House counsel's office never discussed, until this week, the issue of firing all 93 attorneys.
This excuse has been retroactively devised. The White House counsel's office has retroactively pretended that they "vaguely" remember discussing this issue.
House Judiciary is encouraged to glean the lessons of Patrick Fitzgerald: Ask him what his experiences were with interviewing White House staff.
Junior FBI and DOJ Staff are being asked to take the fall and admit to incorrect things to mislead the Congress.
The White House has fabricated a story of Harriet Miers suggesting in 2005 that all 93 attorneys be fired.
This explanation, if true, might have resolved this issue. It was not raised earlier; there were only initial denials. To suggest that there was a "larger effort" implies that the original denials about the US Attorney firings have proven false; and that the reasons were something else.
WE have a moving argument, as with the FISA violations. This is not adding up.
It defies reason for the White House despite "not complaints" to fire, in the second term, any of the US Attorneys. Recall, this was before the "new, illegal procedures" were in place, and would have required the Senate to reconfirm them, subjecting the US Attorneys to review.
This is not something the White House wanted as the Guantanamo, Rendition, and other legal issues would have been raised during confirmation hearings.
It is not credible, before the 2006 election, for the White House have done anything that might expose the US Attorneys to any DNC scrutiny before the Senate Judiciary.
All White House statements that this "firing all 93 US Attorneys" are false. There is no merit that this discussion occurred prior to any testimony; or as anyone was preparing anything. This possibly, if it was to be raised before the hearing, would have been known to the GOP who, at the time in 2006, was livid about the NSA surveillance. The NYT broke the story earlier in 2005.
There is no merit that an idea to replace any of the US Attorneys around the second term. This memory has been retroactively devised.
Notice also, as with Plame, Rove is claiming "vague" recollections of a "suggestion". This is not credible. Under cross examination and FBI interrogation, the White House counsel and Rove are not expected to survive any scrutiny. As with Plame, the White House counsel is expected to provide the Congress with conflicting, inconsistent, and unpersuasive testimony.
There is no merit that Miers thought anything was "unwise". If this decision/assessment were known or real, then the Senate Judiciary would have looked at this "decisions-assessment" as a basis to boost her chances to be on the Supreme Court. This is fiction and never occurred.
There is no merit to any "concern" that the firing of "all 93 Attorneys" would be "disruptive" or "interfere" with any operations. The concern was not raised or real; and the DOJ Operations were already illegal. It is fiction to suggest in 2004 the President was "concerned" with operations -- he was doing the opposite: Openly violating procedures, not following the requirements, and blocking reviews of his known illegal activity. DoJ OPR should have been brought into the nexus to validate that the "concern with the operations" were real. The President did the opposite; any claims that he was "concerned about DOJ Operations" is false, misleading, and not persuasive.
The claims that Sampson said the "replacement of all 93 attorneys" would be unwise is a fictional concern. Nobody in the White House is concerned with anything that is wise. Again, this is a ruse.
There is no merit to any argument that White House counsel's office had discussions related to this topic. White House has not released any memoranda; nor can it prove that the memoranda were real, created at the time, or have not been retroactively crated. The White House has no evidence to support their assertion that these conversations were real.
Suggesting that there was a transition from [a] discussing removing all 93 attorneys to [b] removing "underperforming" attorneys is illusory. There was no transition; there is no basis to suggest that the US Attorneys were "underperforming" and the topic never narrowed from 93 to a smaller number. This never happened.
Perino's e-mail appear to be designed to mislead and does not appear credible. Once Pertrino released that e-mail, then all e-mails he supposedly says support his contention are admissible. He's fatally opened the barn door to Congressional inquiry into his e-mail system. He cannot claim provide on the matters he has fatally disclosed.
It is incorrect that DOJ Sent the White House the list. It was the other way around. Outside sources decided which US Attorneys to target. The DOJ and White House were not the only players. NSA contractors were involved with the intercepts, and knew of the other communications related to voting objectives, and what would undermine voter confidence. This was based on media messaging analysis, and outside consultants on contracts to provide election assessments to Rove.
Rove did not realize that these efforts were known, and being monitored by GCHQ. We can confirm this communication was real, but not known to the White House as evidenced by Libby's counsel being surprised by evidence Fitzpatrick had during the Plame investigation.
It is not likely true for Perino to suggest that the White House did not object. The truth is the opposite: As Conyers stated, the White House was directing action.
Perino's denial that nobody ever ad or subject from a list is not credible. It is a misreading of what happened, and Perino's statements are not credible.
Contrary to assertions that the White House was concerned with "lack" of "voter fraud investigations", the truth is the opposite: The White House and Rove were actively engaged in efforts to mislead the public over the Plume issue, as evidenced by the Libby conviction, and the false WMD data.
Perino's assertion that "no one" asked DOJ To do anything are absurd. She fails to make any case as to why she is denying something that has been openly admitted by NM Members of Congress Wilson and Domenici. Perino's denials defy the open, fatal assertions of Members of Congress.
The action, contrary to Perino's assertions, was no appropriate and not within reasonableness for the White House to pretend one thing, but justify an action with a second fact pattern. If the conduct was reasonable, then the issue should not result in resignations, or inconsistent stories.
Perino does not appear to be a credible witness and could be impeached during cross examination.
If these actions were reasonable, then there would be no reason to downplay anything.