Text 4253, 224 rader
Skriven 2007-03-20 23:31:10 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0703208) for Tue, 2007 Mar 20
====================================================

===========================================================================
President Bush Addresses Resignations of U.S. Attorneys
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2007

President Bush Addresses Resignations of U.S. Attorneys
The Diplomatic Reception Room

˙ Video (Windows) ˙˙Presidential Remarks
˙˙Audio

˙˙˙˙˙ White House Counsel's Letter Regarding U.S. Attorneys

5:45 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about
the resignations of U.S. attorneys. As you know, I have broad discretion to
replace political appointees throughout the government, including U.S.
attorneys. And in this case, I appointed these U.S. attorneys and they
served four-year terms.

The Justice Department, with the approval of the White House, believed new
leadership in these positions would better serve our country. The
announcement of this decision and the subsequent explanation of these
changes has been confusing and, in some cases, incomplete. Neither the
Attorney General, nor I approve of how these explanations were handled.
We're determined to correct the problem.

Today I'm also announcing the following steps my administration is taking
to correct the record and demonstrate our willingness to work with the
Congress. First, the Attorney General and his key staff will testify before
the relevant congressional committees to explain how the decision was made
and for what reasons. Second, we're giving Congress access to an
unprecedented variety of information about the process used to make the
decision about replacing eight of the 93 U.S. attorneys.

In the last 24 hours, the Justice Department has provided the Congress more
than 3,000 pages of internal Justice Department documents, including those
reflecting direct communications with White House staff. This, in itself,
is an extraordinary level of disclosure of an internal agency in White
House communications.

Third, I recognize there is significant interest in the role the White
House played in the resignations of these U.S. attorneys. Access to White
House staff is always a sensitive issue. 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.

Yet, in this case, I recognize the importance of members of Congress having
-- the importance of Congress has placed on understanding how and why this
decision was made. So I'll allow relevant committee members on a bipartisan
basis to interview key members of my staff to ascertain relevant facts. In
addition to this offer, we will also release all White House documents and
emails involving direct communications with the Justice Department or any
other outside person, including members of Congress and their staff,
related to this issue. These extraordinary steps offered today to the
majority in Congress demonstrate a reasonable solution to the issue.
However, we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at
honorable public servants.

The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more
interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will
be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing
subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White
House officials and documents available. I have proposed a reasonable way
to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose confrontation. I will oppose
any attempts to subpoena White House officials.

As we cut through all the partisan rhetoric, it's important to maintain
perspective on a couple of important points. First, it was natural and
appropriate for members of the White House staff to consider and to discuss
with the Justice Department whether to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys at the
beginning of my second term. The start of a second term is a natural time
to discuss the status of political appointees within the White House and
with relevant agencies, including the Justice Department. In this case, the
idea was rejected and was not pursued.

Second, it is common for me, members of my staff, and the Justice
Department to receive complaints from members of Congress in both parties,
and from other citizens. And we did hear complaints and concerns about U.S.
attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of
election fraud cases, while others had concerns about immigration cases not
being prosecuted. These concerns are often shared between the White House
and the Justice Department, and that is completely appropriate.

I also want to say something to the U.S. attorneys who resigned. I
appreciate your service to the country. And while I strongly support the
Attorney General's decision and am confident he acted appropriately, I
regret these resignations turned into such a public spectacle.

It's now my hope that the United States Congress will act appropriately. My
administration has made a very reasonable proposal. It's not too late for
Democrats to drop the partisanship and work together. Democrats now have to
choose whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary
confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people's
business. There are too many important issues, from funding our troops to
comprehensive immigration reform, to balancing the budget, for us to
accomplish on behalf of the American people.

Thank you for your time. Now I'll answer a couple of questions.

Deb.

Q Mr. President, are you still completely convinced that the administration
did not exert any political pressure in the firing of these attorneys?

THE PRESIDENT: Deb, there is no indication that anybody did anything
improper. And I'm sure Congress has that question. That's why I've put
forth a reasonable proposal for people to be comfortable with the decisions
and how they were made. Al Gonzales and his team will be testifying. We
have made available people on my staff to be interviewed. And we've made an
unprecedented number of documents available.

Q Sir, are you convinced, personally?

THE PRESIDENT: There's no indication whatsoever, after reviews by the White
House staff, that anybody did anything improper.

Michael.

Q If today's offer from Mr. Fielding is your best and final offer on this,
are you going to go to the mat in protecting the principle that you talked
about? And why not, since you say nothing wrong was done by your staff, why
not just clear the air and let Karl Rove and other senior aides testify in
public, under oath? There's been a precedent for previous administrations
doing that.

THE PRESIDENT: Some have, some haven't. My choice is to make sure that I
safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions.

Michael, I'm worried about precedents that would make it difficult for
somebody to walk into the Oval Office and say, Mr. President, here's what's
on my mind. And if you haul somebody up in front of Congress and put them
in oath and all the klieg lights and all the questioning, to me, it makes
it very difficult for a President to get good advice. On the other hand, I
understand there is a need for information sharing on this. And I put forth
what I thought was a rational proposal, and the proposal I put forward is
the proposal.

Q And then you'll go to the mat, you'll take this to court --

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. I hope the Democrats choose not to do that. If
they truly are interested in information -- in other words, if they want to
find out what went on between the White House and the Justice Department,
they need to read all the emails we released. If they're truly interested
in finding out what took place, I have proposed a way for them to find out
what took place. My concern is, they would rather be involved with
partisanship. They view this as an opportunity to score political points.

And anyway, the proposal we put forward is a good one. There really is a
way for people to get information. We'll just fine out what's on their
mind.

Kelly O'.

Q Sir, in at least a few instances, the attorneys that were dismissed were
actively investigating Republicans -- in San Diego, in Arizona, in Nevada.
By removing them, wouldn't that have possibly impeded or stopped those
investigations? And, sir, if I may also ask about the Attorney General. He
does not have support among many Republicans and Democrats. Can he still be
effective?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he's got support with me. I support the Attorney
General. I told you in Mexico I've got confidence in him; I still do. He's
going to go up to Capitol Hill and he's going to explain the very questions
you asked. I've heard all these allegations and rumors. And people just
need to hear the truth, and they're going to go up and explain the truth.

Q In San Diego, Nevada, Arizona, Republicans were the targets of
investigations, and those U.S. attorneys were removed. Does that not give
the appearance --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't -- it may give the appearance of something,
but I think what you need to do is listen to the facts, and let them
explain to -- it's precisely why they're going up to testify, so that the
American people can hear the truth about why the decision was made.

Listen, first of all, these U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the
President. I named them all. And the Justice Department made
recommendations, which the White House accepted, that eight of the 93 would
no longer serve. And they will go up and make the explanations as to why --
I'm sorry this, frankly, has bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the
U.S. attorneys involved. I really am. These are -- I put them in there in
the first place; they're decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And
yet, now they're being held up into the scrutiny of all this, and it's just
-- what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their
service, and I'm sorry that the situation has gotten to where it's got. But
that's Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there's a lot of politics in
this town.

And I repeat, we would like people to hear the truth. And, Kelly, your
question is one I'm confident will be asked of people up there. And the
Justice Department will answer that question in open forum for everybody to
see.

If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right
information, they ought to accept what I proposed. And the idea of dragging
White House members up there to score political points, or to put the klieg
lights out there -- which will harm the President's ability to get good
information, Michael -- is -- I really do believe will show the true nature
of this debate.

And if information is the desire, here's a great way forward. If scoring
political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable
proposal will really be evident for the American people to see.

Listen, thank you all for your interest.

END 5:57 P.M. EDT

˙
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070320-8.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)