MTP Transcript for Mar. 18, 2007

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

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

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

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

MR. RUSSERT: But go back to, again, Bill Clinton, back in 1993, when he fired all the U.S. attorneys. The New York Times wrote an editorial saying that the president had tainted the political process and the judicial process, and there was concern that, in fact, a U.S. attorney who was investigating Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski, a Democrat, was removed a few weeks before he was going to make a major decision regarding an investigation.

SEN. SCHUMER: But with Bill Clinton, it was all of the U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his term, which every president has done. The New York Times may think that U.S. attorneys should stay on regardless of the president. There's a good argument for that, but that's apples and oranges. That is not picking out individual U.S. attorneys who are involved in very hot political cases and getting rid of them because things were getting too hot. It's a world of difference.

MR. RUSSERT: But if you cannot prove that, in fact, a criminal investigation was interfered with, then this is all just political complaint and nothing happens.

SEN. SCHUMER: Oh, no. Tim, this is very serious stuff. Now, whether it reaches the level of criminality is one thing. But the U.S. attorneys are the chief law enforcement officer for federal law in each of their districts. At the head of the Justice building, on top of each Justice building, when you walk in, is that eagle with the arrows clutched in her claws, and that symbolizes law without fear or favor. And if U.S. attorneys, when they're doing hot political cases--we've had a tradition--we've had a tradition for decades that they have some independence while--once they're appointed and once they're in office with an existing president. And if U.S. attorneys are to fear that if they pursue these cases against politicians that they will be fired, they won't do it.

And let me make one other point. Let us say, a month from now, some U.S. attorney somewhere in the U.S. indicts a politician, and that politician's lawyer gets up and says what lawyers often say in these situations, "It's politics." Now more people are going to believe that. So the rule of law, without fear or favor, is so important to this country. When you fire U.S. attorneys for political reasons, it's serious. And look, this is not just Chuck Schumer or the Democrats. They say it's political? Ask John Sununu. Ask Gordon Smith. Ask the large number of Republican officeholders who have said this is very wrong as well. This is far deeper than politics.

MR. RUSSERT: Paul McNulty, the deputy attorney general, came before the Judiciary Committee in February, was asked about this, and this was his response.

(Videotape, February 6, 2007)

MR. PAUL McNULTY (Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee): All of the changes that we made were performance-related.

(End of videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Is that accurate?

SEN. SCHUMER: That's totally inaccurate. Paul McNulty himself, I know him, he called me on the phone and said, "I am sorry that I didn't tell you the truth. I was not told that these things were happening by the people who were supposed to brief me." Now, one of those people is Kyle Sampson, Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff to the attorney general. And Kyle Sampson says everyone knew what was going on here. We have to get to the bottom of this.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, in fact, Kyle Sampson's attorney, Brad Berenson, wrote this last night--on Friday, excuse me. "The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject since the election was well-known to a number of other senior officials at the department, including others who were involved in preparing the department's testimony to Congress."

SEN. SCHUMER: You bet.

MR. RUSSERT: So the people who prepared Paul McNulty knew about this?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, that's what Kyle Sampson says, and we have a conflict in testimony. And we have the stories keep changing from so many people. You know, a good lawyer will tell you, when the witnesses keep changing their stories, they're usually not telling the truth and they have something to hide. Our investigation has to get to the bottom of just that.

MR. RUSSERT: There was an e-mail on Friday that was released from two members of the White House counsel staff regarding Karl Rove, and it said this: "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." Now, Mr. Rove could easily say he was simply asking the question: What was the White House counsel's office doing or recommending?

SEN. SCHUMER: That is exactly true, and we don't know yet Karl Rove's exact position and actions. That's why we want to talk to him under oath directly. But I will tell you this, just a few days before, the White House said that the only person who was involved in this decision in the--in the White House was Harriet Miers. Then two days later, it comes out that Karl Rove has done it. here is my advice, for what it's worth, I don't know if they'll take it or not, to the White House: Gather all the facts. Gather them all together. Come clean with them. Give them to our committee. Let the witnesses testify. Let's see where this all goes, and then we can take corrective action to make sure it doesn't happen again. To let it leak out, to let stories keep contradicting each other is no good for the administration, it's no good for the Justice Department, and, most of all, it's no good for America. So let's, let's get all the facts out. Let's look at them thoughtfully, carefully, thoroughly. Let's not flinch from them, but then let's take corrective action and move on.

MR. RUSSERT: There are some supporters of the president who are saying "Schumer--Chuck Schumer's a member of the Judiciary Committee, but he's also chairman of the campaign committee to elect Democratic senators, and this is all about politics."

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, this is much too serious to be about politics, and the bottom line is our committee is simply looking into the misdeeds in the executive branch, in the Justice Department, in the administration. Anything that has to do with any elected official, any congressman, any senator, will be handled by the ethics committee. So there's no conflict whatsoever.

MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Senator Chuck Schumer, we thank you for sharing your views.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: And our viewers should know, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declined our invitation to join us this morning on MEET THE PRESS.

Coming next, the war in Iraq. The debate continues as we enter the fifth year of fighting that war. Should we stay or should we leave? Four men with very, very different views join us next, coming up right here only on MEET THE PRESS.

                               (Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: The war in Iraq. It began four years ago. An in depth discussion about it after this brief station break.

                               (Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we're back. Welcome all. The war in Iraq four years old, and let me show you some of the numbers after the first four years. U.S. troops killed, 3,192; US troops wounded, 24,042. The cost is $351 billion. If you include budget requests, it would be about $500 billion. And the Iraqi civilian deaths, some 54,000.

Congressman DeLay, is the war in Iraq worth the cost in life and treasure?

FMR. REP. TOM DeLAY (R-TX): Well, you said it yourself, Tim. It's been four years since American has been attacked by these terrorists. We seem to forget that we are at war, and when you're at war, you've got to fight that war to win rather than fight the war for political posturing. We have been fighting that war. Sure, it--it's been tough. We've had to write a complete new war manual on how to fight terrorists that want to kill women and children. If you compared that note to, say, the Vietnam war in the same period of time, you're talking about much more in casualties and, and relative spending.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Sept. 20: President Obama, Sen. Graham, Rep. Boehner, roundtable Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: