U.S. Attorney Dismissals - May 3, 2007

Transcript Text

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:00:23
    5 minutes

    This hearing of the Committee on the
    Judiciary, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law,
    will come to order.
    I will recognize myself for a short statement.
    It has been nearly 5 months since an unprecedented number
    of U.S. attorneys were fired midterm, without cause and without
    explanation. Five months have passed since December 7, 2006,
    and we are still trying to understand why these talented and
    experienced U.S. attorneys were forced to resign.
    As the facts unfold, we are left with more questions than
    answers. What we have learned so far is troubling and warrants
    further inquiry.
    We have learned that the Bush administration exploited the
    change in interim appointment limits of U.S. attorneys by
    purging high-performing U.S. attorneys.
    When the fired U.S. attorneys received notification that
    they would be fired, several were in the midst of high-profile
    public corruption investigations involving Republican
    officials.
    We have learned that U.S. attorneys were rated on a removal
    list based in large part on whether they were loyal Bushies.
    However, after numerous interviews with Justice Department
    officials and reviewing of department documents, it is still
    unclear who within the Administration was responsible for
    placing those particular U.S. attorneys on the list.
    The Justice Department testified before this Subcommittee
    that the U.S. attorneys were removed for ``performance-related
    reasons.''
    However, internal department evaluations, letters of
    commendation from department officials and numerous awards from
    outside groups clearly contradict that testimony. In fact,
    mounting evidence suggests that reasons set forth by the
    department are misleading, and that the U.S. attorneys were
    improperly dismissed.
    Although the president has a right to dismiss U.S.
    attorneys, he does not have the right to remove them in order
    to interfere with ongoing investigations, or to retaliate
    against a U.S. attorney for not prosecuting cases that would
    benefit a particular political party. Politics should not be
    injected into decisions to bring the full force of the law
    against an individual.
    If even a single U.S. attorney lost his or her job either
    for prosecuting Republicans or for refusing to prosecute
    Democrats, this would represent a serious threat to the very
    notions of fairness on which our justice system rests.
    In order to restore the American people's faith in the
    administration of justice, we must know with absolute certainty
    that those who are charged with crimes are charged based on the
    evidence, and not because of political consideration.
    Despite our attempts to expedite the Judiciary Committee's
    investigation, we have been barred from learning whether these
    U.S. attorneys were fired for an improper purpose.
    While we appreciate the Justice Department's general
    cooperation with our investigation, the department has withheld
    materials that are clearly related to the mass firings and were
    requested by the Committee, including unredacted documents with
    key information.
    Chairman Conyers has issued a subpoena for their production
    and the deadline for their production has passed.
    Although the president has publicly pledged to get to the
    truth of the matter, the White House continues to be an
    obstacle in concluding this investigation.
    On March 9th, Chairman Conyers and I sent a letter to White
    House Counsel Fred Fielding requesting testimony and documents
    from White House officials with direct knowledge of the facts
    and circumstances in the U.S. attorneys controversy.
    Despite Chairman Conyers' repeated attempts to reach an
    agreement on the terms under which White House testimony and
    documents will be shared with the Committee, the White House
    has refused negotiation.
    We continue to be hopeful that the White House will
    cooperate with this investigation. However, after nearly 2
    months of stonewalling, we still have not received any
    information from the White House.
    Such tactics do not inspire public confidence in the
    Administration but serve only to increase public doubt in the
    Administration's integrity and commitment to equal justice
    under the law.
    Our investigation has also revealed that Administration
    officials discussed firing U.S. attorneys while using
    Republican National Committee e-mail accounts. As a result,
    this Committee has also requested that the Republican National
    Committee produce copies of e-mails from White House officials
    concerning the issue.
    Instead of allowing the RNC to immediately comply with the
    request, the White House has slowed the production of documents
    by asserting a flimsy argument that they must review all of the
    documents for claims of executive privilege.
    It is my hope that this morning's testimony from James
    Comey, the former Deputy Attorney General, will bring us one
    step closer to resolving this matter.
    I want to thank Mr. Comey for his gracious cooperation with
    our subpoena, and make clear that he is participating in this
    hearing under compulsion.
    I would now like to recognize my colleague, Mr. Cannon, the
    distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for his
    opening remarks.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:05:30
    2 minutes

    I thank the Chairlady.
    I would like to point out that from the beginning of this,
    we have heard the word ``corruption'' bandied about. We now
    have thousands and thousands of pages of documents, many
    interviews of people, and so far this seems to be a fishing
    expedition that has come up dry.
    I know the minority is--or the majority, unfortunately--is
    wishing or casting its nets and hoping to catch someone from
    the White House. But thus far, despite the complaints, there
    has been nothing, at least that I can see out there, that
    warrants the continued reference to stonewalling and corruption
    and other, I think, extreme statements by the majority.
    Nevertheless, the minority remains committed to ensuring
    that the material facts come out in this matter, the sooner the
    better.
    Some witnesses whom Committee staff has interviewed have
    suggested that Jim Comey was informed about the review of U.S.
    attorneys while he was deputy attorney general, knew of
    information pertaining to some of the U.S. attorneys whose
    resignations were ultimately requested or was consulted about
    some of those U.S. attorneys.
    We welcome Mr. Comey's testimony so that he can answer our
    questions and add to the record of this investigation.
    We are not sure that Mr. Comey has all of the information
    that pertain to some of our questions.
    For example, we are not sure whether Mr. Comey knows that
    David Margolis, the top career official at the Department of
    Justice, indicated in an interview earlier this week that the
    idea of reviewing U.S. attorneys was a good one; that, based on
    his knowledge of the relevant information, he generally
    endorses the grounds offered for requesting the resignations;
    and that he would like for the department to be able to conduct
    this kind of review again, and hopes that it can, but fears the
    current clamor may chill future efforts. Heavy on the clamor.
    We also are not sure if Mr. Comey has a fair sense of the
    picture emerging from all the interviews, testimony and
    document reviewed thus far. We hope that his ability to offer
    testimony has not been limited or tainted by selective leaks of
    information from the private interviews that have occurred.
    Those leaks have generated the impression in the major
    media that we believe runs counter to the thrust of the
    information we have collected and reviewed to date.
    Nevertheless, we hope that this will be an informative
    hearing. And we do know that Mr. Comey has been identified as a
    witness who may have material information concerning the events
    that we are examining. Therefore, we welcome him today.
    In private discussions, I have indicated my admiration for
    Mr. Comey, who has performed a wonderful service for America.
    I hope that we can find out what he knows and do it very
    quickly, so that he can get back to his important work and this
    Committee can as well.
    Thank you.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:08:13

    Would the gentleman yield, just a second, before
    he yields back?

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:08:13

    Certainly. Absolutely.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:08:13
    1 minute

    I know this is out of regular order, but I wanted
    to just take exception to one thing that the gentleman said.
    I personally am hoping that there is nothing that we find
    at the end of this investigation. And your statement to the
    effect that we are hoping for some kind of sinister result, I
    don't think I want to just let it pass quietly into the night.
    It would be a profound statement about our justice system
    if we found that political and presidential involvement in
    matters that should be outside politics and in the justice
    system were--that these matters were influencing the outcomes
    of prosecutions. And I think it would be devastating to all of
    us.
    This inquiry, from my personal perspective, is not about
    finding wrongdoing. I hope there is no wrongdoing. I think we
    have an obligation to get to the bottom of this, and to
    reassure the public that there is no wrongdoing if in fact that
    is the case.
    If it is not the case, then I think it is our
    responsibility to expose that.
    And I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, because I
    personally took that----

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:10:08

    Well, I think the gentleman needed it.
    And reclaiming my time, as is almost always the case, I
    agree with the gentleman. And if there is any implication of
    any personal offense, I apologize for that. None was intended.
    Nevertheless, the course of this investigation has thus far
    turned up nothing.
    The gentleman can take, I think, great comfort from the
    interview that Mr. Margolis gave about the integrity of the
    system. And if we were fair and balanced in how we were
    reviewing this, I don't think that I would necessarily be in a
    position to have to try and bring some balance back into it by
    pointing out that thus far nothing has occurred that should
    shake the confidence of people in the system.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:10:08

    If the gentleman would----

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:10:08
    52 seconds

    The balance of politics--I grant you a balance
    of politics and fairness, but we need to examine that. And that
    is why Mr. Comey, I think, will be an important witness.
    And I realize I am out of time, but I would ask for
    unanimous consent for an additional minute to yield to the
    gentleman.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:11:00
    33 seconds

    And I won't take an additional minute.
    I just want to point out to the gentleman, that obviously
    hadn't read the front page of this morning's Washington Post,
    which suggests that the Justice Department is now doing an
    investigation of whether there were any illegal things taking
    place. And they are now believing that something illegal has
    taken place.
    So this notion that you have that nothing sinister has
    taken place is just not borne out by what appears to be coming
    to light here.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:11:33

    Well, reclaiming my time----

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:11:33

    The time of the gentleman has expired.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:11:33
    7 seconds

    Madam Chair, I ask for an additional minute----

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:11:40

    Without objection, so ordered.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:11:40
    47 seconds

    The fact is this has been a trial by leaks. And
    the press has been, I think, a willing accomplice to try and
    taint the Administration because that sells newspapers. I don't
    think that much as actually come out that is substantial in
    that sense.
    The fact that the Justice Department is doing an internal
    review has been known by, I think, Members of this Committee
    for some period of time. The fact that it appears in The
    Washington Post is not indicative of what we ought to be doing
    or where we ought to be going or justification for what we have
    done, especially since those kinds of stories have typically
    been subject to leaks that I thought we agreed we would not do
    in the course of this investigation.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:12:27

    I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
    And I would now like to recognize Mr. Conyers, a
    distinguished Member of the Subcommittee and the Chairman of
    the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Conyers?

  • Mr. Conyers

    At 00:12:27
    5 minutes

    Thank you very much, Committee Chairman
    Sanchez.
    I first begin by commending the Subcommittee on Commercial
    and Administrative Law for the excellent way that you have
    comported yourself and moved forward in this investigation.
    I wish we could assure everybody that this will be a very
    brief meeting, and that this matter will be over quickly. I
    have no idea how long we are going to take.
    I am very pleased, I can tell you, that James Comey, the
    former deputy attorney general of the Department of Justice, is
    here with us today. And so we take another important step at
    getting at the truth in our investigation of the recent mass
    firings of U.S. attorneys.
    And we have learned something. We know that the firings
    were apparently part of a long-laid plan involving the highest
    levels of the Department of Justice and the White House.
    We are also aware that misstatements were made concerning
    the reasons for the firings by high-ranking members of the
    Department of Justice, up to and including the Attorney
    General.
    We know that several department officials have resigned in
    connection with this matter--certainly not the witness with us
    today--and that at least one such official has asserted her
    fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination.
    We have also found that numerous questionable, if not
    improper, communications were made by Members of Congress to
    several of the United States attorneys concerning pending
    prosecutions before they were fired, and that efforts were made
    after the firings to discourage United States attorneys from
    cooperating in our inquiry.
    We are aware that thousands of e-mails relating to this
    matter have been lost, misplaced, or destroyed in potential
    violation of Federal law.
    We are also aware that the department has opened up two
    separate internal inquiries related to these matters.
    But what we don't know, as we meet this morning, is who
    actually made the decision to place the U.S. attorneys on the
    firing list. The attorney general, Mr. Gonzales, has told us
    that it was not him. Mr. Kyle Sampson has denied making the
    substantive judgments. We have interviewed other senior
    officials in the department, and all deny making the actual
    decision to place the names on the list.
    The role of the White House remains elusive, in large part
    due to their failure, as referred to by the Chairwoman, to
    cooperate with the Committee's inquiry.
    And so, against this backdrop, we are fortunate to have
    today's witness, who has a unique perspective on the recent
    firings of the eight United States attorneys by the Bush
    administration because he worked closely with many of them as
    fellow United States attorneys and he supervised them and their
    offices for substantial periods of time.
    Mr. Comey has a superb reputation as a career Federal
    prosecutor and an effective deputy attorney general and is
    generally regarded by all as a straight-shooter who has always
    embodied the highest and best traditions of the Department of
    Justice.
    And so, we proceed on today's hearings, knowing that we owe
    the American people the duty to learn, to share with them the
    true reasons for these firings, because the Department of
    Justice and the prosecutorial integrity of our Nation is coming
    under scrutiny. We expect that we will be able to assess what
    is true and what isn't.
    And it is in this spirit that I come to the hearing to
    congratulate the Subcommittee and its Chairman and also the
    witness that is before us today.
    And I thank the gentlelady.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:17:58
    1 minute

    I thank the gentleman for his statement.
    Without objection, other Members' opening statements will
    be included in the record.
    Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare
    a recess of the hearing.
    I am now pleased to introduce the witness for today's
    hearing. James Comey is a former deputy attorney general of the
    United States, serving in President George W. Bush's
    administration. As deputy attorney general, Mr. Comey was the
    second-highest ranking official in the United States Department
    of Justice and ran the day-to-day operations of the department.
    He was appointed to the position in 2003, after serving as
    the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Prior
    to that, Mr. Comey served as managing assistant U.S. attorney
    in charge of the Richmond division of the U.S. Attorney's
    Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.
    In August 2005, Mr. Comey left the Justice Department, and
    he is currently general counsel and senior vice president of
    Lockheed Martin.
    We welcome you for your appearance today.
    I want to remind Subcommittee Members that you will be
    permitted to ask questions, subject to the 5-minute limit. And
    we will hopefully have two rounds of questioning, depending on
    how many questions remain after the first round.
    And I want to note also to the Members and to our witness,
    we are expecting the Hate Crimes Bill on the floor this
    morning. So there may be interruptions. And we want to
    apologize ahead of time for those interruptions.
    I will begin the first round of questions myself, subject
    to the 5-minute rule.
    I would ask our witness to please state your name for the
    record.
    TESTIMONY OF MR. JAMES B. COMEY, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY
    GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:19:40
    16 seconds

    My name is James Comey. I go by Jim Comey. And
    as you said, Madam Chairman, I am currently the general counsel
    of Lockheed Martin and served as the deputy attorney general
    from 2003 to 2005.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:19:56
    4 seconds

    What were your responsibilities as deputy
    attorney general concerning U.S. attorneys?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:20:00
    10 seconds

    I was the direct supervisor of all the U.S.
    attorneys, and so dealt with them quite frequently on a variety
    of matters: resolving disputes, talking with them about
    resources, trying to support them in any way that I could.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:20:10
    27 seconds

    And both in your role as deputy attorney
    general and as a U.S. attorney serving on the attorney
    general's advisory committee under Attorney General Ashcroft,
    how familiar are you with the work and the performance of the
    six former U.S. attorneys who testified before this Committee
    last month, including David Iglesias, Carol Lam, John McKay,
    Paul Charlton, Dan Bogden and Bud Cummins?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:20:37
    28 seconds

    I knew each of those people from being a
    colleague of theirs when I was U.S. attorney of Manhattan and
    as their supervisor. I interacted with them and their districts
    in different degrees.
    I would say that I knew five of the six better. Mr. Cummins
    I didn't have much contact with. I had quite a bit of contact
    with, for example, Mr. Bogden, Mr. Iglesias and Mr. Charlton,
    because they were implementing a violent crime initiative that
    I was in charge of in their districts.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:21:05
    5 seconds

    Okay. And are you familiar with Attorney
    General Gonzales's former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:21:10

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:21:10
    42 seconds

    Okay. Mr. Sampson has testified to the Senate
    and to the House that he was involved beginning in early 2005,
    when you were deputy attorney general, in an effort that
    involved the White House and the Department of Justice and that
    culminated in the termination of the eight U.S. attorneys in
    In particular, he has stated that he consulted you in 2005,
    that he asked, ``If you wanted to ask a handful of United
    States attorneys to resign, who would you have on your list?,''
    and that he shared with you that this inquiry had come from the
    White House.
    Do you recall Mr. Sampson telling you that about the White
    House and asking you that question?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:21:52
    53 seconds

    I do not. I remember meeting with Mr. Sampson, a
    date that I couldn't peg until I went through my old calendars
    and now I believe was February 28th of 2005.
    It was a 15-minute meeting. Two topics were covered, as I
    recall. And one was him asking me, as best I can recall, who
    did I think were the weakest U.S. attorneys. I have some
    recollection of him giving me a preamble, something like, ``If
    there is ever an opportunity to replace weak people or if we
    ever look at our U.S. attorneys, who do you think are the weak
    ones?''
    I am quite certain he didn't mention the White House. I
    think that would have stuck in my mind.
    And in response to the question, which was an echo of a
    question that the prior chief of staff, Mr. David Ayres, for
    John Ashcroft had asked me a year earlier, I gave him, off the
    top of my head, my reactions, some people that I thought were
    weak managers and were among our less productive, less
    effective U.S. attorneys.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:22:45

    Okay. Was Kevin Ryan of San Francisco one of
    the weak performers that you identified in that conversation?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:22:45
    5 seconds

    Yes, ma'am.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:22:50
    10 seconds

    And other than Mr. Ryan, were there any other
    U.S. attorneys that were terminated in 2006 included among the
    weak performers that you identified in that conversation?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:23:00

    I don't believe so, no.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:23:00
    33 seconds

    Okay.
    I would like to ask you some specific questions, Mr. Comey,
    about what Mr. Sampson has testified was the first list that he
    compiled of possible U.S. attorneys to be terminated, which was
    sent to Harriet Miers at the White House in early March of
    2005, shortly after your meeting with him.
    I want you to look at the document that was produced by the
    Department of Justice in response to our request and bears the
    identifying numbers of OAG-511. Do you have that document in
    front of you?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:23:33
    5 seconds

    Yes, I do.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:23:38
    20 seconds

    Let me just grab it, so that I have it readily
    available in front of me.
    You will see that some information has been redacted from
    the document, and that it doesn't show that copies were sent to
    anyone inside the Department of Justice.
    Do you recall seeing this document or any other versions of
    it in 2005?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:23:58
    20 seconds

    No. I never saw it or any version of it.
    I guess I should have said this in response to your earlier
    question: I was not aware that there was any kind of process
    going on or that my very brief conversation with Mr. Sampson
    was part of some process to figure out a group of U.S.
    attorneys to fire. So I was not aware of a list.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:24:18

    Okay. But have you seen it since then?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:24:18
    12 seconds

    Yes, ma'am. I saw it for the first time when
    Committee investigators interviewed me, and then I looked at it
    briefly again this morning.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:24:30
    40 seconds

    Okay.
    Looking at the bottom of the first page, which is OAG-5 of
    the document, as we understand it, U.S. attorneys whose names
    are in bold were identified as those that Mr. Sampson was
    recommending retaining as strong U.S. attorneys who have
    produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the president
    and the attorney general.
    U.S. attorneys whose names were stricken out or had a line
    drawn through them were being recommended for removal as weak
    U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and
    prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, et
    cetera, and while--there was no recommendation with respect to
    other U.S. attorneys who were described as not having
    distinguished themselves either positively or negatively.
    Is that your understanding of this chart as well?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:25:10
    10 seconds

    That is what it says. And I don't know any
    independently of how they put this together, but you have read
    it accurately.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:25:20

    Okay. Thank you.
    My time has expired.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:25:20
    22 seconds

    Madam Chair, may I just suggest that every 5
    minutes or so, if there are questions I really want to ask, I
    will--if you just run the clock, I will turn back in. But let
    me ask unanimous consent from everyone we have, Republicans and
    Democrats here, that you just be given the next 10 minutes to
    ask questions, if you would like.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:25:42
    18 seconds

    Any objections from the Subcommittee? We can
    continue in that manner.
    And just jump in any time, Mr. Cannon, that you would like
    to ask a question. Are you seeking time at this moment?

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:26:00
    20 seconds

    No, I actually--I think that if you, yourself,
    do the questioning, I think that would make it a much more
    coherent presentation, and you guys are the ones that are
    looking for information.
    So perhaps after--if you take 10 minutes, like I suggested
    in my unanimous consent, then we will take a look and see if
    there are things we need to ask. Otherwise, I am inclined to
    just have you continue to----

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:26:20

    Well, I would also like to give the other
    Members of the Subcommittee----

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:26:20
    5 seconds

    Certainly there are other people that do. That
    is why I limit it to 10 minutes.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:26:25

    Okay.

  • Mr. Feeney

    At 00:26:25

    Madam Chairman?

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:26:25

    Yes?

  • Mr. Feeney

    At 00:26:25
    18 seconds

    And it is certainly up to the discretion of the
    Chairman and the Ranking Member.
    I do have votes in the
    Financial Services Committee, and did have a few questions if
    it was possible. But I certainly, obviously understand the
    Chairman is conducting the meeting.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:26:43

    I am only interested in having this work as
    quickly and as efficiently for Mr. Comey as possible. And if
    the Chair would like to recognize Mr. Feeney so he can ask
    questions and go, I am happy with that.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:26:43
    32 seconds

    Certainly. Let me just continue with one last
    question, and then we will--if there is, sort of, a natural
    break in the questions, and then I will recognize Mr. Feeney
    for questions.
    Did you have any idea that this chart existed and was being
    transmitted to the White House at this time concerning the U.S.
    attorneys who you supervised and were familiar with?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:27:15

    No, I did not.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:27:15

    Okay. Thank you.
    I will now recognize Mr. Feeney for 5 minutes of
    questioning.

  • Mr. Feeney

    At 00:27:15
    26 seconds

    Thank you. I sure appreciate the courtesy of
    the Chairwoman.
    Mr. Comey, did anybody ever, during discussions about
    review of performance of attorneys or removal of attorneys,
    suggest to you that impacting ongoing investigations was one of
    the considerations in who to remove or how to review their
    performance?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:27:41

    No, sir.

  • Mr. Feeney

    At 00:27:41
    17 seconds

    Did anybody suggest that in order to reward or
    punish somebody for their political affiliation or their
    political leanings that they should be dismissed? Or was that
    suggested as a criteria for review of their performance?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:27:58
    3 seconds

    Not in any discussion I was ever present for.

  • Mr. Feeney

    At 00:28:01

    I have no further questions.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:28:01
    9 seconds

    Is the gentleman yielding back his time?

  • Mr. Feeney

    At 00:28:10
    5 seconds

    I do. And I once again want to thank the
    Chairwoman and the Ranking Member.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:28:15
    10 seconds

    At this time, because we do have our Chairman
    of our full Committee joining us here this morning, I would
    like to give him an opportunity to go next and ask 5 minutes of
    questions.
    Mr. Conyers, you are recognized.

  • Mr. Conyers

    At 00:28:25
    48 seconds

    Thank you. Thank you so much.
    Thanks for your appearance here, Mr. Comey. We appreciate
    it very much.
    The testimony so far in this matter is that no one from the
    Department of Justice has taken responsibility for suggesting
    the dismissals of Ms. Lam or Mr. Iglesias, Bogden, Charlton or
    McKay.
    You have known all of them. Do the reasons offered by the
    department for their terminations ring true to you?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:29:13
    34 seconds

    I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, that I know all the
    reasons that have been offered.
    My experience with the U.S. attorneys just listed was very
    positive. For example, Mr. Bogden in Las Vegas did a bang-up
    job on the violent crime program that we asked him to help
    with. And I had numerous positive interactions with the others.
    So the ones that I have read in the newspaper have not been
    consistent with my experience. But, again, I have been gone
    since August of 2005. But I had very positive encounters with
    these folks.

  • Mr. Conyers

    At 00:29:47
    6 seconds

    Any particular recollections of your
    associations with Ms. Lam?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:29:53
    27 seconds

    I dealt with Ms. Lam as a colleague as U.S.
    attorney in Manhattan; I dealt with Ms. Lam as the deputy
    attorney general. I visited her office, talked to her troops.
    The only substantive interaction I recall with her was I,
    at one point, talked to her about gun cases and spoke to her
    about the importance of that priority in the department.
    But my interactions with her were always positive.

  • Mr. Conyers

    At 00:30:20
    32 seconds

    Thank you.
    Now, about Ms. Monica Goodling, have you heard concerns
    from anyone in the department about efforts by Ms. Goodling or
    anyone else to take political or ideological considerations
    into account in the hiring of line-level U.S. attorneys or
    other career applicants?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:30:52
    18 seconds

    I had heard rumors to that effect, and I have
    read in the newspaper most recently about an investigation on
    that subject. But, again, when I say I had heard rumors--after
    I left the Government, in the last 6 months or so.

  • Mr. Conyers

    At 00:31:10
    1 minute

    Now, let me ask you just a little bit more
    specifically about several of the U.S. attorneys whose names
    were stricken and were recommended for removal on the list of
    March 2005, and who testified before the Committee.
    If you turn to the chart OAG-N6, the second page in this
    document--again, a number of names have been redacted from this
    version of the chart. But what I would like to find out is, can
    you identify any names of U.S. attorneys on this page who have
    been stricken and recommended for removal?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:32:16
    14 seconds

    It looks like, if I understand the code
    correctly, that the crossing out of Bud Cummins's name and
    Carol Lam's name means that they are people who were
    recommended for removal.

  • Mr. Conyers

    At 00:32:30
    12 seconds

    Yes. Thank you.
    Let's start with Ms. Lam. Was she included among the weak
    performers who you identified to Mr. Sampson?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:32:42

    I don't believe so, no.

  • Mr. Conyers

    At 00:32:42
    16 seconds

    Thank you. Did you, in 2005 or any time,
    consider Ms. Lam a weak U.S. attorney who was an ineffectual
    manager or prosecutor?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:32:58
    2 seconds

    No, I didn't.

  • Mr. Conyers

    At 00:33:00
    8 seconds

    Or did you perceive her to be one who chafed
    against Administration initiatives?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:33:08

    No, I didn't.

  • Mr. Conyers

    At 00:33:08
    10 seconds

    Did you communicate any negative assessment of
    her to Mr. Sampson, or recommend that she be removed?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:33:18
    6 seconds

    No.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:33:24
    6 seconds

    The time of the gentleman has expired.

  • Mr. Conyers

    At 00:33:30

    I will stop at that point. Thank you.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:33:30
    5 seconds

    Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Cannon, questions?

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:33:35
    20 seconds

    Thank you. Actually, I do have one follow-up
    there.
    I personally thought Ms. Lam was a very competent human
    being. You have mentioned that you talked to her once about
    guns. Can you tell us the substance of what you said to her at
    that time?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:33:55
    1 minute

    Yes, certainly. Attorney General Ashcroft--this
    would have been, I think, in 2004--asked me to speak to each of
    the U.S. attorneys who were in the bottom 10, in terms of gun
    prosecutions--and I think it was calculated per capita, to take
    into account the size of districts.
    And so I spoke to each of those 10 U.S. attorneys that
    included Ms. Lam and told her what I told all the others, and
    that is that this is a priority of the Department of Justice,
    that if there is a contribution to be made by the U.S.
    Attorney's Office in reducing gun crime in the district, that
    is if criminals with guns are not getting the kind of time that
    they ought to in the State system, for example, that we as
    Federal prosecutors wanted to make an impact there, and it was
    a priority of the department. So I needed those U.S. attorneys
    to focus on why their gun numbers were where they were and
    whether there was a contribution to be made that they weren't
    making.
    I said to each of them, ``I am not asking you to make gun
    cases for the sake of pumping your numbers. But if there is a
    contribution to be made in your district, please focus on it
    and see if you can lend a hand in prosecuting gun crimes.''
    So that was the conversation I had with Ms. Lam, as well as
    the other nine.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:35:00
    5 seconds

    So was it by way of admonishment, to some
    degree?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:35:05
    50 seconds

    I guess to a certain extent. My tone wasn't
    admonishing, but I learned that it is a big deal any time the
    deputy attorney general calls and wants to talk to you about
    your cases.
    And I wasn't threatening or beating up on them. I was
    simply saying, ``Look, you are in the bottom 10. Maybe that is
    where you should be. Maybe your local prosecutors are really
    hammering gun possession crime; they don't need you. But figure
    out whether you are needed, and focus on it.''

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:35:55
    25 seconds

    Mr. Margolis apparently said in his interview
    that Ms. Lam was a bit insubordinate, and even suggested that
    she might agree with that characterization.
    My view of her--and I only met her in the hearing here--was
    that she was pretty tough-minded and pretty clear. And she had
    some pretty good ideas about what she ought to do with guns.
    I take it from your statement here that you were asking her
    to look at it. So this is early in the history of the gun issue
    with her. And you were saying, ``Look at what is happening in
    the State, with local prosecutions, and then decide whether you
    need to adjust your priorities.''
    So you were not mandating that adjustment, I take it,
    right?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:36:20
    25 seconds

    Correct. I was urging a very close look, because
    her district, along with the nine others, were in the bottom
    group, to make sure there wasn't a contribution that we were
    missing the opportunity to make.
    And I don't know what happened thereafter to the gun
    numbers. It never came back to my attention. So I don't know
    whether there was a response in some way in her district that
    changed the number of cases they did.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:36:45

    Right.
    At this point, I think that is all the questions I have.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:36:45
    15 seconds

    Thank you.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, is recognized for
    5 minutes.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:37:00
    20 seconds

    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Mr. Comey, the conversation that you had with the 10,
    including Ms. Lam, about the relatively low number of Federal
    gun prosecutions in her district, did that indicate any
    dissatisfaction by you with her?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:37:20
    38 seconds

    Not personally. I think the fact that I was
    calling was designed--I mean, I intended it to really energize
    the U.S. attorney to focus on the issue.
    But as I have explained to people a bunch of times, when I
    was running the U.S. Attorney's Office in Richmond, Virginia,
    there was a real need for a Federal impact on gun possession
    crimes. Because people weren't getting the kind of time they
    needed to reduce violent crime in the State system.
    When I moved to being U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Bob
    Morgenthau and his office were all over gun possession crimes,
    and doing it very aggressively. So my approach changed. That is
    why I didn't want to mandate to a U.S. attorney, ``Do X number
    of gun cases.'' What I wanted them to do was to focus on it and
    figure out where they could make a contribution.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:37:58
    15 seconds

    Nothing in that conversation or about that
    conversation would be meant to suggest that her performance was
    deficient and that she should be terminated. Is that a fair
    characterization?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:38:13

    That is a fair characterization.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:38:13
    14 seconds

    Of the other 10 U.S. attorneys who you called
    who had relatively low prosecution numbers, how many of them
    were terminated in 2005 or 2006?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:38:27

    None of them, to my knowledge.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:38:27
    11 seconds

    In your opinion, would the number of such gun
    prosecutions be a reliable indicator of whether a U.S. attorney
    was performing well or should be terminated?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:38:38
    13 seconds

    No. It tells you nothing in a vacuum.
    As I said, just comparing my experience in Manhattan to my
    experience in Richmond, my gun numbers per capita dropped off
    dramatically when I became U.S. attorney in Manhattan. And I
    thought I was doing an okay job.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:38:51

    Overall, what was your evaluation of Ms. Lam
    as a U.S. attorney?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:38:51
    9 seconds

    I thought she was a fine U.S. attorney. I never
    had experience with insubordination with her. My encounters
    were perfectly pleasant. My only substantive encounter, as I
    said, was in connection with our gun discussion.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:39:00
    14 seconds

    Does your assessment of her include an
    understanding and an appreciation of her work on immigration?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:39:14
    8 seconds

    I don't think I ever focused on her work on
    immigration. At least I don't remember discussing it or
    understanding what her work was on immigration.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:39:22
    15 seconds

    Do you have any information or idea from whom,
    whether in the department, the White House or elsewhere, Mr.
    Sampson got his evaluation and recommendation to terminate Ms.
    Lam?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:39:37
    13 seconds

    I do not. And as I said, I was not aware there
    was a process going on, frankly. I thought it was a casual
    comment in the course of a very brief meeting.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:39:50
    7 seconds

    Do you have any information, one way or the
    other, as to whether the decision to terminate her was related
    in any way to her work on the public corruption cases involving
    Duke Cunningham or others?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:39:57
    3 seconds

    I have no information about that.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:40:00
    10 seconds

    Let's turn to Mr. Cummings. Was Mr. Cummings
    included among the weak performers who you identified to Mr.
    Sampson?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:40:10

    No, sir.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:40:10
    14 seconds

    Did you, in 2005 or at any time, consider Mr.
    Cummings a weak U.S. attorney who was an ineffectual manager or
    prosecutor or who chafed against Administration initiatives?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:40:24

    No, sir.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:40:24
    11 seconds

    Did you communicate any negative assessment of
    Mr. Cummings to Mr.
    Sampson or recommend that Mr. Cummings be
    removed?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:40:35

    No.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:40:35
    5 seconds

    What was your view of Mr. Cummings?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:40:40
    20 seconds

    I didn't have much of a view of Mr. Cummings. I
    knew him, knew he was a very pleasant fellow. But he and his
    district had not crossed my radar screen, which, from the
    deputy's perspective, is actually a very good thing. Bad things
    tend to reach the deputy, and so, if you didn't reach me, you
    must be doing okay.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:41:00
    5 seconds

    And you pretty much considered him to be
    competent.

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:41:05

    Yes, that was my sense.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:41:05
    30 seconds

    Do you have any information or idea from whom
    or whether in the department, the White House, or elsewhere
    that Mr. Sampson--well, let me rephrase this question.
    Do you know of how Mr. Sampson received his information and
    came to the conclusion after an evaluation to recommend
    termination of Mr. Cummins?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:41:35

    I do not.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:41:35
    17 seconds

    Let me ask you to turn to page three of the
    chart, page OAG-N8. Can you identify the names, after you have
    reached that page?
    Are you there?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:41:52

    Yes, sir.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:41:52
    8 seconds

    Can you identify any names of U.S. attorneys
    on this page who have been stricken and recommended for
    removal?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:42:00
    8 seconds

    There is only one name, and it has been
    stricken. That is John McKay's. So according to the legend
    here, he has been recommended for removal on this chart.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:42:08

    The time of the gentleman has expired.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 00:42:08
    2 seconds

    Thank you.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:42:10
    8 seconds

    Thank you.
    Mr. Cannon? You still have time.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:42:18
    11 seconds

    Thank you. I appreciate that. At this point I
    don't have any questions. And if you want to just continue with
    your side, that would be fine.
    Mr. Jordan, I don't think, has questions either. He
    indicated to me he hasn't.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:42:29
    11 seconds

    Okay. We will continue forward. Mr. Watt, the
    gentleman from North Carolina, is recognized for 5 minutes.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:42:40
    20 seconds

    Thank you.
    And thank you for being here, Mr. Comey.
    You identified Mr. McKay as one of the people who was
    recommended for removal, and he was, in fact, removed. Was Mr.
    McKay included among the weak performers who you identified to
    Mr. Sampson?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:43:00

    No, sir.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:43:00
    10 seconds

    Did you consider him an effectual manager or
    prosecutor or someone who chafed at Administration initiatives?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:43:10

    No, sir.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:43:10
    7 seconds

    Did you communicate any negative assessment about
    Mr. McKay to Mr.
    Sampson?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:43:17

    No, sir.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:43:17
    49 seconds

    It was suggested that concerns had been raised
    about Mr. McKay while Larry Thompson was the deputy, relating
    to a murder of an assistant U.S. attorney named Thomas Wales in
    which Mr. McKay had requested some action by the department;
    that Mr. Sampson would have checked with you as the current
    deputy about that before using that as a basis for recommending
    Mr. McKay be placed on the termination list; and that this may
    have been a reason he appeared on the list in March of 2005.
    Do you have a response to that suggestion?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:44:06
    19 seconds

    I don't remember discussing that tragedy with
    anyone other than Mr. McKay. And it was simply briefly to talk
    to him about how awful it was, and for him to express his--he
    cared very passionately about finding the person who killed his
    AUSA. And I don't remember any other discussion besides that.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:44:25

    Were you aware of any impropriety or
    inappropriate behavior by Mr. McKay in connection with that
    death?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:44:25

    None.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:44:25
    35 seconds

    Okay.
    Some concerns were expressed about Mr. McKay after you left
    as deputy attorney general, and after the March 2005 list was
    put together, concerning the LInX information-sharing system,
    and some suggestions that this may have had something to do
    with his staying on the removal list.
    How would you respond to that?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:45:00
    58 seconds

    I don't know whether that played a role on him
    ending up with a line through his name.
    I guess I wasn't supposed to have favorites, but John McKay
    was one of my favorites, because he is a very charming and, as
    I said, passionate person. And he cared about something I cared
    an awful lot about, which was information-sharing.
    And he and I both believed that it was absurd that our
    children could Google and touch billions of pieces of
    information, but someone chasing a serial rapist could only
    find out if other police departments had seen a green car by
    calling every police department and asking if they had seen a
    green car.
    And we both had this vision that we ought to leave a legacy
    of law enforcement being able to Google and catch bad guys. And
    that is what LInX was, an effort to put that technology in
    place.
    So I worked with him pretty closely. I was inspired by him,
    and thought he had a terrific idea and was making a real
    difference with this LInX program.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:45:58
    17 seconds

    So the characterization that the Seattle Times
    reported, and which it quoted you as saying that Mr. McKay was
    a person of ``passion and energy and could wear his heart on
    his sleeve, but never had any issues with him being
    insubordinate,'' would be a correct assessment?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:46:15

    Yes, sir, that is correct.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:46:15
    7 seconds

    And I take it, then, that your overall view of
    Mr. McKay was that he was a strong performer.

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:46:22

    Yes, sir, very favorable.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:46:22
    24 seconds

    Do you have any information or idea from the
    source of the department, the White House or elsewhere that Mr.
    Sampson may have gotten his evaluation or recommendation to
    terminate Mr. McKay?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:46:46

    I have no idea where it came from.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:46:46
    18 seconds

    Out of the three U.S. attorneys who were
    terminated who testified before this Committee and were
    recommended for termination on the 2005 list, would you
    disagree that performance justified termination of any of the
    three of those individuals?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:47:04
    11 seconds

    As of the time I left, I was not aware of a
    performance-related reason that the three folks we have
    discussed should be terminated.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:47:15
    30 seconds

    And in contrast, if you turn back to page one of
    the chart, that is OAG-N6, is there a U.S. attorney whose name
    is listed in bold on that page as someone recommended to be
    retained as a strong U.S. attorney who had ``produced, managed
    well, and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney
    general,'' can you find that person?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:47:45

    Yes, sir. Mr. Ryan.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:47:45
    15 seconds

    And is that the same Mr. Ryan who you had
    identified just a few minutes earlier as one of the weak
    performers that you identified?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:48:00
    15 seconds

    Yes, sir, I had.
    And a lot of people have been hurt in this process, and I
    don't mean to hurt Mr. Ryan by revealing that I made that
    recommendation. He is a fine guy. He just had management
    challenges in that office that were fairly serious. But I hope
    he has landed on his feet and is doing well.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:48:15

    The time of the gentleman has expired.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 00:48:15

    Thank you, ma'am.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:48:15
    5 seconds

    Thank you.
    Mr. Cannon?

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:48:20
    15 seconds

    Madam Chair, I don't think our side has
    questions. But my two Members have other commitments. If we
    could just have an agreement that I will take 5 minutes--or
    have the opportunity to take 5 minutes after each of your
    witnesses, they may want to leave. And I don't have any
    questions at this point.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:48:35

    I am amenable to that suggestion.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:48:35

    Thank you.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:48:35
    10 seconds

    Thank you.
    We will continue. Mr. Cohen is recognized, the gentleman
    from Tennessee, for 5 minutes.

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:48:45
    5 seconds

    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Firstly, Mr. Comey, I have, kind of, perused some of this
    material here. And I don't know who you knew at the New York
    magazine, but I would pay for that article. That was great.

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:48:50

    I think my mother wrote it. [Laughter.]

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:48:50
    25 seconds

    Well, she is a good writer. And I think she has
    good judgment.
    You have got a good vitae. I am impressed.
    I read that at one point that Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers had
    suggested replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Did you have
    knowledge of that plot or plan at one point?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:49:15
    5 seconds

    No, I had never heard of it before I read about
    it in the newspaper.

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:49:20
    5 seconds

    Had that ever happened in history, that there
    was this, like, ``wipe them all off the ship''?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:49:25
    20 seconds

    Again, my history doesn't go back that far. I
    have some recollection that at the beginning of the Clinton
    administration, the sitting U.S. attorneys were asked for their
    resignations.

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:49:45

    But they were taking out the Bush guys.

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:49:45
    5 seconds

    Right. But in terms of during a term, at least
    not in my experience.

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:49:50
    8 seconds

    Do you have any reasonable idea in the ideas of
    justice and promoting the American way that that would happen,
    why that would occur or why they would think about that?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:49:58
    7 seconds

    I don't. I don't know what folks would be
    thinking who would suggest that. It would be very disruptive.
    And that may be why it was not done. I hope it was why it was
    not done.

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:50:05
    5 seconds

    Did you ever have any dealings with Mr. Rove or
    Ms. Miers?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:50:10
    5 seconds

    Never with Mr. Rove. I don't think I have ever
    met him.
    Ms. Miers, yes, when she was White House counsel and I was
    deputy attorney general.

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:50:15
    7 seconds

    And what was her role as far as personnel and
    politics at the Department of Justice?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:50:22
    23 seconds

    I never had any interaction with her on either
    of those subjects. We would talk primarily about issues, legal
    issues that needed input, that related, for example, to
    pardons. It was a direct contact between the deputy attorney
    general and the White House counsel to discuss pardon
    recommendations, for example. But never about politics or
    hiring at the Department of Justice.

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:50:45
    15 seconds

    One of the criterias that were laid out for
    looking at who would be considered worthy of keeping strong and
    weak was exhibited loyalty to the president. What do you think
    that term means, in terms of the Department of Justice?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:51:00
    55 seconds

    That is a very good question. I don't know
    exactly what they meant by that phrase.
    The Department of Justice, in my view, is run by political
    appointees of the president. The U.S. attorneys are political
    appointees of the president.
    But once they take those jobs and run this institution, it
    is very important, in my view, for that institution to be like
    any other in American life, that--because my people had to
    stand up before juries of all stripes, talk to sheriffs of all
    stripes, judges of all stripes. They had to be seen as the good
    guys, and not as either this Administration or that
    Administration. We just couldn't get our work done if we were
    seen that way.
    So the trick in the Department of Justice was to have an
    organization run by political appointees who recognize that
    they have a special trust to protect this institution and to
    make sure it remains an other in American life so it can serve
    all Americans. I mean, that is what the Department of Justice
    does.

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:51:55
    22 seconds

    That is what I see it as. And I couldn't
    understand and don't understand exhibited loyalty to the
    president. I mean, that doesn't--seems like not even a factor.
    It is so political. And I am not sure what that means. And that
    raises a question.
    Do you have any idea--when you left the Department of
    Justice, how would you rate the morale there?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:52:17
    46 seconds

    I guess I can't speak for my own staff, but I
    think it was fairly high.
    I mean, the Department of Justice is made up of 110,000
    people who you don't see if you are in Washington. That is why
    I traveled so much as the DAG, because my troops were all over
    the place: in Federal prisons guarding prisoners, executing
    search warrants, protecting victims. And they do it out in the
    field primarily in the Department of Justice.
    And when you visit those people, they are a fired-up group.
    They love doing good for a living. It is a pretty neat thing to
    get paid to do good for a living. And they treasure it.
    And whenever people talk about morale, the great hope for
    the Department of Justice, even as morale may have been hurt by
    this, is that those fired-up people who love what they do still
    love it and are not going to let anything get in the way of
    that.

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:53:03

    Do you have any idea what the morale is at the
    Department of Justice now from contacts with others based on
    information and belief?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:53:03
    12 seconds

    I think folks are having a tough time now. This
    is a tough period of time for the department.

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:53:15
    13 seconds

    You loved the Department of Justice, and it is
    obvious from your testimony if anything was done to--it has
    been weakened, has it not, because of this situation, this
    controversy?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:53:28
    32 seconds

    I sure hope not. Because when I think of the
    department, again, I think of the whole, all 110,000 people.
    Certainly, it has caused a morale hit here at main Justice,
    the mothership. But I hope it doesn't affect that which is
    essential about this institution, and that is the ability to do
    good every day and to protect people and to help people.
    And I just count on the fact that I know how good the
    people are out there doing the work, that FBI agents executed a
    search warrant, I am sure, someplace in the country this
    morning and risked their lives. And they are doing it because
    they love to do it, and----

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:54:00
    5 seconds

    If somebody that was the head of this department
    took actions that may weaken the department, would they be put
    on the weak list, that might be those that, you know, should
    go? [Laughter.]

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:54:05
    5 seconds

    The time of the gentleman has expired, but we
    will allow the witness to answer.

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:54:10

    I would hope the time expiring would help me as
    well. [Laughter.]

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:54:10
    7 seconds

    I would like to ask for 30 extra seconds.
    [Laughter.]

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:54:17
    23 seconds

    You know, in many ways I miss the department
    terribly, but in other ways I enjoy being a private citizen.
    I don't think that is for me to say. I didn't put together
    any lists. I don't understand this code, frankly. And so, if I
    could, I would like to take a pass on that one.

  • Mr. Cohen

    At 00:54:40

    You will take it. Thank you, sir.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:54:40

    Okay. Mr. Cannon is recognized.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 00:54:40
    50 seconds

    Thank you.
    It is obvious that you love the department. And may I just,
    without asking a question, just make the point that what the
    department does is vitally important to America, and we agree
    on that.
    It is a wonderful institution. It is an institution that
    has developed wonderful processes, that are complicated, over a
    long period of time.
    And that I am hopeful that we can get through this
    investigation as quickly as possible so that the danger you
    have referred to that may be happening to the morale and
    institution of what you called the mothership is very important
    to America and that we need to solve this problem, get through
    it, and then let the Administration deal with how they adjust
    after we get through.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I would yield back.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:55:30
    35 seconds

    Thank you.
    We do have substantially more questions to get through, so
    we will begin a second round of questioning. And I will
    recognize myself to begin that second round.
    I want to go back--I believe Mr. Watt had started to ask
    you a series of questions about Mr. McKay.
    Are you aware of the fact that in connection with the 2004
    election, just a few months before the March list was prepared,
    that there were concerns raised by Republicans and others in
    Washington about Mr. McKay not pursuing an alleged voter-fraud
    case in an election in the State?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:56:05

    I had never heard that, and know of it only what
    I have seen in the newspaper.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:56:05
    20 seconds

    Do you have any information, one way or the
    other, as to whether complaints about Mr. McKay's actions or
    lack of actions on these vote-fraud allegations went to the
    White House or anybody else at the Department of Justice?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:56:25

    I don't know.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:56:25
    25 seconds

    Okay. Thank you.
    I would like to now ask you some questions about Mr.
    Charlton and Mr. Bogden. Those two were both terminated, and
    testified before this Committee, but were first identified for
    possible termination in early 2006, shortly after you left the
    department. And I realize that.
    Did you ever indicate to Mr. Sampson anything negative
    about Mr. Charlton----

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:56:50

    No.

  • Ms. Sanchez [continuing]

    At 00:56:50

    Or his performance?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:56:50
    3 seconds

    No.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:56:53

    What was your view of Mr. Charlton as a U.S.
    attorney?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:56:53
    15 seconds

    I thought he was a very strong U.S. attorney,
    one of the best. And I had dealt with him as a colleague when I
    was U.S. attorney. And I had dealt with him in particular on
    the violent crime impact initiative that we had in his district
    and Iglesias's and Bogden's.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:57:08
    24 seconds

    Well, there has been some suggestion that one
    of the reasons why he was placed on the termination list or was
    maintained on the termination list was because of his decision
    to ask the attorney general to reconsider a decision to seek
    the death penalty in a death penalty case.
    What is your reaction to that claim?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:57:32
    45 seconds

    I don't have any personal knowledge of that.
    There wasn't much--in fact, I don't think there was anything
    more important that I did as deputy attorney general than make
    recommendations on death penalty cases, whether to seek the
    ultimate sanction for somebody. I always welcomed U.S.
    attorneys talking to me about it, giving me input.
    I remember--and I can't remember all the details--Mr.
    Charlton once calling me to talk to me about a case to give me
    input that wasn't in the papers that I had seen. And he turned
    me around on a particular case and how to approach a case, as I
    recall, when Attorney General Ashcroft was there.
    Paul Charlton was a very experienced, still is, very smart,
    very honest and able person. And I respected him a great deal
    and would always listen to what he had to say.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:58:17
    18 seconds

    So that was a case that you recall, not the
    details of where presumably you guys wanted to seek the death
    penalty, he had talked to you about that case and managed to
    actually convince you that perhaps that wasn't the sanction
    that was warranted in that case?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:58:35
    38 seconds

    I think it was a case where we had sought the
    death penalty, and the defendant wanted to plead guilty to life
    without parole. I think in the first instance we had rejected
    that.
    And, as I recall, Mr. Charlton called me and talked to me
    and said, ``I have got to get you to take another look at that;
    let me explain why,'' and made a very convincing case. And my
    recollection is that he turned me around on it.
    And I concluded that his concern was particularly for the
    victim's family, and that he was concerned they would be
    traumatized again. And they were passionate that they wanted to
    resolve this on a life plea.
    So he turned me around on it. And my recollection is I
    changed my recommendation. And I think I convinced John
    Ashcroft to turn around on it.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:59:13
    27 seconds

    So based on the fact that he had successfully
    brought new information to your attention which made you change
    your mind on a case, would that be a legitimate basis in the
    future for them saying, ``He deserves to be fired because he
    tried to talk to us about another isolated case in which we
    were seeking the death penalty and perhaps he felt that wasn't
    warranted''?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 00:59:40
    16 seconds

    All I can do is speak about myself. I would
    never not only not discourage that kind of thing, I would
    encourage it. Because I needed to hear from the people in the
    field who knew these cases, because I am trying to make these
    decisions off a notebook in Washington, D.C., and I can't feel
    the pain of the victim's families. And he can. And you always
    want that input.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 00:59:56
    14 seconds

    I appreciate that.
    Are you aware of Mr. Charlton's work with respect to
    charges concerning alleged improper actions by Representative
    Renzi, based on media reports or other sources?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:00:10

    I have read some about it in the newspaper. I
    knew nothing about it when I was in the Government.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:00:10
    9 seconds

    Do you have any information, one way or the
    other, about whether that work played any role in the decision
    to remove him as a U.S. attorney?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:00:19

    I don't know.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:00:19
    16 seconds

    Let me ask you about another U.S. attorney who
    was placed on the termination list in early 2006, Dan Bogden.
    Did you ever indicate to Mr. Sampson anything negative about
    Mr. Bogden or his performance as a U.
    S. attorney?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:00:35

    No.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:00:35
    6 seconds

    Do you believe that he lacked energy in his
    handling of his office, as has been claimed by some?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:00:41

    No.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:00:41
    8 seconds

    My time has expired. I would like to recognize
    Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:00:49
    8 seconds

    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    With respect to Mr. Bogden, what was your view of Mr.
    Bogden as a U.S. attorney?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:00:57
    49 seconds

    I thought he was a very good U.S. attorney. He
    is as straight as a Nevada highway, and a fired-up guy.
    And we had this violent crime impact team program that we
    asked ATF to lead, and we chose places to do it that were
    experiencing a spike in violent crime. But not every place that
    was experiencing a spike in violent crime; we wanted to put it
    where we had a fired-up U.S. attorney who could watch over it
    and make it work and had great relations with State and local
    law enforcement.
    That is why we chose Mr. Bogden's district in Las Vegas,
    because they were experiencing a spike in violent crime. But
    that is the kind of U.S. attorney he was. He was loved in that
    community.
    And I went once to announce the program with him and 6
    months later to give a report card to the people of Las Vegas,
    and he had made tremendous strides on violent crime. I thought
    he was very good.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:01:46

    Do you know anything about his performance
    that would have justified his removal?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:01:46
    9 seconds

    No, I don't.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:01:55
    23 seconds

    Do you have any idea as to where or from what
    source Mr. Sampson got his information upon which he evaluated
    and then recommended termination of Mr. Bogden?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:02:18

    I do not.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:02:18
    23 seconds

    With respect to Mr. Iglesias, who testified
    before this Committee, going back to the 2005 chart, you will
    note that his name was bolded as a strong U.S. attorney who
    should be retained. Is that correct?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:02:41

    Yes, I see it in bold on page ``multiple zero''-
    seven.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:02:41
    8 seconds

    Do you agree with that assessment?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:02:49
    15 seconds

    Well, I am not sure what the criteria are, so I
    am not sure I could agree or disagree about loyalty to the
    president and attorney general.
    But I thought he was a very effective U.S. attorney. He
    was, sort of, the Bogden of New Mexico: very straight, very
    able.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:03:04
    5 seconds

    So you would agree that he was a strong U.S.
    attorney who should have been retained?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:03:09

    Yes.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:03:09
    15 seconds

    And can you give us any other information
    about his performance? Apparently you saw him as being--I mean,
    you just said that. Anything else you would like to say about
    his performance?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:03:24
    25 seconds

    No. I had contact with it again through the
    Violent Crime Impact Team program, where he did it in
    Albuquerque and did it very, very effectively. Albuquerque
    experienced dramatic drop in homicides in particular and
    shootings, as I recall, in their most problem-plagued
    neighborhoods as a result of that program.
    I thought he was very effective. I, obviously, as with the
    others, I knew him as a colleague first and then as his boss,
    and had a very positive view of him.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:03:49
    27 seconds

    When Mr. Iglesias, as you may know, was added
    to the list to be terminated in November of 2006, the only
    performance-related criticism that we have heard of him was
    that he delegated too much to his first assistant and that he
    was an absentee landlord, if you will, too hands-off.
    What is your reaction to that criticism?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:04:16
    36 seconds

    It had never reached my ears when I was deputy.
    I have read in the paper that he was supposedly away to do
    service in the Navy, because he was a reservist. I knew that
    and knew the famous story about him being the model for Tom
    Cruise, and used to tease him about not being as cute as Tom
    Cruise. [Laughter.]
    But all I know is what I have read in the paper.
    And if a U.S. attorney was away to serve his country as a
    Navy reservist, it is not something that I as DAG would have
    held against him, certainly.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:04:52
    11 seconds

    Well, depending on the strength, I guess, of
    his first assistant, would you consider delegation of some
    management tasks to that first assistant, assuming that that
    first assistant was competent, would that not be a strength, as
    opposed to a weakness?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:05:03
    14 seconds

    Certainly, so long as it is reasonable.
    And I had a very effective first assistant when I was U.S.
    attorney in Manhattan. He followed me as U.S. attorney, David
    Kelley. And I used to give him all the hard stuff to do.
    [Laughter.]

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:05:17
    16 seconds

    I am sure that many of the staffers around
    here could relate to that. [Laughter.]
    So would it be fair to conclude that Mr. Iglesias was
    considered to be very engaged in his job as U.S. attorney?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:05:33
    7 seconds

    I certainly thought so. It was my impression
    from dealing with him when I was there.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:05:40
    45 seconds

    Now, I want to read to you a brief excerpt
    from the last year's evaluation report on Mr. Iglesias.
    It states, ``The United States attorney was experienced in
    legal, management and community relations work and was
    respected by the judiciary, agencies and staff. The first
    assistant United States attorney appropriately oversaw the day-
    to-day work of the senior management team, effectively
    addressed all management issues, and directed the resources to
    accomplish the department's and the United States attorney's
    priorities.''
    Now, does that suggest to you that Mr. Iglesias improperly
    or inappropriately delegated tasks?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:06:25

    No. That sounds like an A-grade review.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:06:25

    The time of the gentleman has expired.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:06:25

    Thank you.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:06:25
    10 seconds

    Mr. Cannon is recognized for 5 minutes.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:06:35
    1 minute

    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    We talked about a couple of U.S. attorneys with some
    particularity, from your perspective. And I just want to point
    out that that--your working with an understanding of them
    happened at a relatively significantly earlier stage, and you
    have, what, a year and a half or so where you were not
    overseeing them, is that not the case?
    And, first, I liked Bogden. I thought he was a very
    competent guy. I don't know what was going on there.
    But my experience with Mr. Iglesias was actually, sort of,
    startling. We talked about--I think we had Mr. McKay and Ms.
    Lam who had both reported contacts from Members of Congress to
    the department. And when I asked Mr. Iglesias about his
    reporting of contacts that he had claimed in the press, he
    said, yes, he had reported those contacts to the department.
    And I asked him when. And he said by talking to the press about
    them, by telling the press. I was absolutely astounded at that
    approach. He could have said ``no'' as easily.
    And then he went on to talk about or try to make a
    distinction between announcing indictments after he was asked
    to resign and announcing that there was going to be action when
    everybody knew that there was an investigation going on, and
    making some hollow distinction that those were not indictments
    that he was announcing.
    I think that what I have just said is a fair
    characterization of the record that he made here before us. Is
    that consistent with the Mr. Iglesias that you knew and thought
    was a qualified U.S. attorney?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:08:16

    I don't know what exactly he means by, as you
    said, ``I disclosed it to the department by telling the media
    that.''

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:08:16
    24 seconds

    I didn't know either, but, apparently, he had
    not called his supervisor at the Department of Justice and
    said, ``I have had a call or a contact and it consisted of the
    following,'' which is, I think, what the department manual
    requires.

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:08:40
    20 seconds

    That is what a U.S. attorney is supposed to do.
    It sounds to me like he screwed up in that instance, and should
    have made the call and reported the contact.
    It doesn't necessarily change my view of him that he was a
    competent U.S. attorney. And in my experience, like I said, he
    was a very fired-up guy and a competent guy.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:09:00
    16 seconds

    I don't mean to niggle here, but the fact that
    he was a competent guy in your perspective, and that would not
    be diminished by his failure to call, if he did what I
    suggested to you, which is say that he actually had complied
    with the requirement by telling the press, would that cause you
    to question his judgment?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:09:16

    It just strikes me as curious.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:09:16

    Yes, it was odd.

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:09:16

    It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:09:16
    14 seconds

    I guess what I--I don't mean to put you on the
    spot. You are here rethinking a lot of stuff, and I think you
    have answered these questions very, very well that have been
    put to you.
    But the point is, people change. And there was a time lag
    here.

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:09:30

    Absolutely.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:09:30
    15 seconds

    And as I think your testimony--and the record
    should reflect that you are nodding at this point--is based
    upon your knowledge at the time that you were here and not a
    rethinking of the judgment made by people subsequent in the
    department.

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:09:45
    20 seconds

    That is absolutely the case, and I should make
    that clear. I don't know what happened after August of 2005. I
    wasn't consulted to get updates on how people were doing, so I
    really can't speak to it.
    And I don't intend my testimony to be a criticism of my
    successor. I don't know what the encounters were between the
    DAG who followed me and the U.S. attorneys. I have read some
    stuff in the paper, but I don't have any personal knowledge of
    that.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:10:05
    34 seconds

    Thank you. I really appreciate that.
    And just before I yield back, let me point out that what is
    happening I think so far in this questioning is a rethinking, a
    grasping at straws, rather than looking at a process that
    actually, over thousands and thousands of documents and now
    over more than a half a dozen interviews, has shown itself to
    be actually a fairly thoughtful, competent process.
    And perhaps Mr. Watt's hopes will be achieved
    here soon, and then we can get beyond this and let the
    department do its work.
    Thank you, Madam Chair----

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:10:39

    Does the gentleman yield on that point?

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:10:39

    Yes, I yield----

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:10:39
    48 seconds

    All right.
    I just want to respond to something you said before we
    lunch. There are still more questions outstanding. We would
    like to do a third round of questioning.
    But when you say there is a grasping at straws, this is an
    investigation where we are trying to find out the circumstances
    under which these U.S. attorneys were fired. Nobody at the DOJ
    seems to know who created the list or who put the names on the
    list.
    And that is the purpose of this hearing today, is to try to
    elicit some of the information regarding the performance--
    because performance was at one point given as the justification
    for the firing of some of these U.S. attorneys.
    Mr. Comey has----

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:11:27
    18 seconds

    Reclaiming my time, which is about to expire,
    let me just point out that performance--we have been through
    the issue of the use of the term ``performance.'' And Mr.
    McNulty was very careful about saying that performance meant
    meeting the criteria of the Administration.
    And unfortunately that was taken--and there are a number of
    communications to indicate that people took particular offense
    at that idea of having their performance, their capability
    questioned. It seems to me----

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:11:45

    The time of the gentleman has expired.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:11:45

    I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30
    seconds.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:11:45
    5 seconds

    So ordered.

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:11:50
    25 seconds

    If the gentlelady's argument is that we are
    trying to find out where this list came from, Mr. Comey
    actually may be relevant in a very narrow sense to that
    question, because he was there early in the discussions.
    I think what we have heard so far is that he wasn't really
    involved in that, but that I think if we ask the gentleman we
    would find that he believes there was a process that was a
    significant process that generated a review. And that may be
    helpful. I don't know that much else would be.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:12:15
    12 seconds

    The time of the gentleman has expired. And I
    will take the first few seconds of my third round of--oh, I am
    terribly sorry. I apologize. It is Mr. Watt's turn to speak.
    Mr. Watt is recognized for 5 minutes.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 01:12:27
    8 seconds

    If the Chairlady would prefer me defer to her, I
    am happy to do that. But I was about to go exactly where Mr.
    Cannon has invited me to go----

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:12:35

    Lead the way, Mr. Watt. Lead the way.

  • Mr. Watt [continuing]

    At 01:12:35
    27 seconds

    Which was to ask Mr. Comey whether,
    during the time that you were the deputy, did it ever occur
    that U.S. attorneys were terminated or asked to resign? And, if
    so, without identifying the individuals involved, could you
    describe what the process was that you followed?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:13:02
    1 minute

    Certainly.
    I remember two occasions on which we asked U.S. attorneys
    to resign. Both had engaged in what I considered serious
    misconduct. And one was when John Ashcroft was attorney
    general. The other was when Alberto Gonzales was the attorney
    general.
    In each instance, my recollection is that I spoke to the
    attorney general about the misconduct, laid it out. We
    discussed it and how serious it was and got his approval to
    have my senior staff member, David Margolis, who has been
    mentioned, place a call to this individual and suggest that he
    resign.
    And in both cases, that is what we did. I talked to my
    staff about it quite a bit, talked to the attorney general,
    then had Mr. Margolis place a call and tell the U.S. attorney
    that it was time to leave and explain why; that, given what had
    been found and the conduct that had been discovered, that it
    was not appropriate for them to remain in office.
    And one U.S. attorney resigned in response to that call.
    The other insisted on being fired by the president. And so we
    had the president actually fire him by letter.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 01:14:12
    22 seconds

    And in the course of that process, who would have
    the contact with the U.S. attorney? Would it be you at the
    deputy level? Would there be any discussions with the U.S.
    attorney who was being considered for termination about the
    allegations?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:14:34
    24 seconds

    It was, in both instances, Mr. Margolis, who was
    associate deputy attorney general, and this was within his
    portfolio. He handled--used to call him the Turk. He handled
    discipline matters and problematic appointees and
    investigations. And so, he spoke in each instance to the U.S.
    attorney, explained why we were asking for the resignation,
    went through it in some detail.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 01:14:58
    44 seconds

    So if in fact in October of 2006--or, it was
    reported that Senator Domenici, who, interestingly enough, had
    recommended Mr. Iglesias for his job, then decided that Mr.
    Iglesias was not ``up to the job,'' is what I understand he
    said--would there have been a discussion in this process that
    you had historically followed with Mr. Iglesias about that
    before a termination occurred? Or would you just up and fire
    Mr. Iglesias 1 day without that kind of discussion taking
    place?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:15:42
    32 seconds

    I guess all I can speak to is what my experience
    was. And that is, in both of the cases where I was involved
    with doing that, terminating a U.S. attorney, there were
    extensive discussions with the U.S. attorney so they understood
    why we wanted them out.
    And the two I was involved with were--I am not going to go
    into it here--but were not close calls. I mean, these were, as
    soon as you read about it, you said, ``This guy has got to
    go.''
    But we explained it, through Mr. Margolis, to both people
    in the two cases I was involved with.

  • Mr. Watt

    At 01:16:14
    5 seconds

    I will be happy to yield the balance of my time
    to the Chair. And she is next anyway, I believe, so she can
    just tack it on to her 5 minutes.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:16:19
    30 seconds

    I appreciate your yielding time, Mr. Watt.
    If a U.S. attorney was, in fact, fired for not following
    Administration priorities on some subject, but neither the U.S.
    attorney nor the first assistant or successor were told the
    reasons for the firing, would you expect that the firing would
    create a change in the priorities of that office, if neither
    one were informed of the reasons for the firing?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:16:49

    If they didn't know about the concerns about the
    priorities?

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:16:49
    28 seconds

    Yes, if somebody was just summarily dismissed,
    and there was no discussion that took place with the U.S.
    attorney nor their first assistant, who presumably would be the
    person in charge in the interim, if the reasons for their
    dismissal were never discussed, would you expect that there
    would be any change in priority in that office or ability to do
    better in the areas that were deficient of the person who was
    on the way out the door?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:17:17
    11 seconds

    I suppose it would be hard for them to respond
    if they didn't know what the message was that was being sent.
    So I guess the answer is, if I were the U.S. attorney being let
    go, I wouldn't know what priorities to pass along to my first
    assistant.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:17:28
    7 seconds

    Just recently, the Seattle Times reported that
    you had informal discussions with Attorneys General Ashcroft
    and Gonzales about underperforming U.S. attorneys. Is that
    correct?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:17:35
    37 seconds

    No. I am going to offend my friends in the
    press. It was a bit of a garble by that reporter.
    I spoke to each of those attorneys general, their chiefs of
    staff, briefly about it. Mr. Ayres asked me in 2004, said,
    ``Who do you think are the weakest U.S. attorneys?'' I answered
    off the top of my head. And then Mr. Sampson in February of
    2005 asked me basically the same question, almost in the same
    words, and I answered again off the top of my head.
    I never spoke to either Mr. Ashcroft or Mr. Gonzales about
    that subject.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:18:12
    12 seconds

    So you spoke with their chiefs of staff. Did
    you identify to those chiefs of staff any of the U.S. attorneys
    who were fired in 2006 as underperforming, other than Mr. Ryan?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:18:24

    No, I don't believe so.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:18:24
    11 seconds

    Now, we all know, because it has been stated
    multiple times in many of the hearings that we have had, that
    the U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and
    can be dismissed by him as he sees fit. Is that correct?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:18:35

    That is my understanding, yes, ma'am.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:18:35
    19 seconds

    Great. But in your view, would it be proper to
    seek the removal of a U.S. attorney in order to retaliate or to
    influence the bringing or the failure to bring cases to benefit
    a particular political party? Would that be proper?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:18:54
    16 seconds

    In my view, it would not be. It ought not to be
    something that we do. And I don't have any reason to believe
    that was done here. I don't know the facts. But I would be
    concerned about that if that happened.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:19:10
    8 seconds

    Right. We understand. Because you have stated,
    I think, previously that you didn't have any information, one
    way or the other, to whether or not that played a role in the
    decision to terminate the six U.S. attorneys who testified
    before the Subcommittee earlier this year.

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:19:18

    Correct.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:19:18
    12 seconds

    Okay. But in your view and to the best of your
    knowledge, were there valid, performance-based reasons to
    terminate any of these six U.S. attorneys?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:19:30

    Not in my experience with them.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:19:30
    5 seconds

    So during your time----

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:19:35

    During my tenure, no.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:19:35
    26 seconds

    Thank you.
    Mr. Comey, returning to that 2005 list that we have been
    discussing this morning, although it is not reflected on the
    redacted version of the chart that you have in front of you, it
    has been reported that Patrick Fitzgerald of Illinois was
    listed on that chart in the middle category as someone who had
    not distinguished himself positively or negatively.
    What is your reaction to that rating?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:20:01
    9 seconds

    I have never thought much of him. [Laughter.]
    No, I am just kidding. He is a very close friend of mine--

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:20:10

    I think he will be shocked to hear that.

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:20:10
    9 seconds

    He is a very close friend of mine. I think he is
    one of the finest Federal prosecutors that there is and maybe
    has ever been.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:20:19
    9 seconds

    So you would disagree with the assessment on
    that list that he hasn't distinguished himself either
    positively or negatively?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:20:28

    Although I have enjoyed teasing him about it, it
    would not be where I would put him on the list.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:20:28
    19 seconds

    Okay, thank you.
    It has also been reported that Steve Biskupic--I hope I
    pronounced that correctly--of Wisconsin was on an early list of
    U.S. attorneys for termination. Did you identify him to Mr.
    Sampson as a weak performer?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:20:47

    No. I think very highly of him.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:20:47
    18 seconds

    Okay.
    And in your view, what has been the message sent to and the
    effect on the morale of other U.S. attorneys, assistant U.S.
    attorneys, in the Department of Justice as a result of the
    firing of the six U.S. attorneys who have testified before this
    Committee?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:21:05
    10 seconds

    It is a big group, so it is hard to characterize
    in one sweeping statement. But, as I said, this is a hard time
    for folks at the department for a whole lot of reasons. And I
    think it is a time of great uncertainty and pain for people who
    love the Department of Justice.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:21:15
    47 seconds

    Okay.
    My final question. I want to actually just read you a part
    of an e-mail that has been provided to the Committee and that
    was apparently sent to you by Bud Cummins on March 8th relating
    to the firings.
    According to the text that we have been provided, you
    stated the following to Mr. Cummins: ``You are a good man and
    have handled this maelstrom with great dignity. Watching it
    causes me great pain for the USAs whom I respect and the
    department which I love. Regardless, I will not sit by and
    watch good people smeared. What is that quotation about, `All
    that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain
    silent'?''
    [The e-mail follows:]


    Did you, in fact, tell Mr. Cummins that?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:22:02

    I did.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:22:02
    8 seconds

    Thank you, Mr. Comey.
    I have no further questions.
    Mr. Cannon?

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:22:10
    3 minutes

    Mr. Comey, I appreciate your humor there.
    [Laughter.]
    You have mentioned Mr. Margolis as a very competent person.
    I am going to read some of the things that he
    has said recently, and I will think you will get another
    chuckle out of this as well.
    I don't know if you are familiar with this at all, but Mr.
    Barrera to Mr. Margolis: ``Do you have an understanding as to
    what Mr. Comey's opinion of the performance of Mr. Iglesias was
    as a U.S. attorney?
    ``Mr. Margolis: Only by reading a quote from him''--that is
    from you--''in the newspaper. Mr. Barrera: Do you have an
    opinion on whether or not Mr. Comey as deputy attorney
    general--'' Mr. Margolis interrupts and says, ``I sense a
    softball coming. Just throw it out there.'' [Laughter.]
    ``Mr. Barrera: Do you have an opinion on Mr. Comey's
    evaluation of Mr. Iglesias as U.S. attorney? Mr. Margolis: Jim
    is very fair''--referring to you, Mr. Comey--``very decent. I
    have to admit he is softer than I am on personnel judgments,
    but he certainly had a better basis to judge this guy than I
    did.''
    ``Mr. Barrera: Did you ever have any conversations with
    anyone in which you recall, prior to December 6, 2006, that Mr.
    Iglesias had any performance or conduct issues? Mr. Margolis: I
    don't believe so, no.''
    ``Mr. Barrera: Did you at any time prior to December 7,
    2006, understand that any elected officials, including Senator
    Domenici or Heather Wilson, had expressed concerns of any sort
    about Mr. Iglesias?''
    ``Mr. Margolis: No, I learned that subsequently. I would be
    remiss if I didn't point out that I am furious at Mr. Iglesias
    for not reporting this. And I don't think I would be sitting
    here answering questions if he had reported that. Because the
    way we react at the department when something like that comes
    up is we run the other way to make sure nobody thinks we are
    fixing the case. So that is unforgivable. And his explanation
    was unforgivable. His explanation was, `Oh, this guy was my
    mentor.' That is what we hold out as an independent U.S.
    attorney to the public. To say, `Oh, well, I am not going to
    follow the rules if I like this guy,' or something like that, I
    am furious about that. Now that doesn't mean I am not furious
    at the other party to the conversation, either. But I don't
    expect as much of him. And I will just say that I know the
    other two parties very well, and I don't believe that they
    would ever have done a phone call the way Mr. Iglesias
    characterized it.''
    So I think Mr. Margolis represents himself remarkably well
    as an advocate for the Department of Justice. I believe that
    you are laughing and I am laughing because here is a guy who
    actually loves an institution, doesn't like to see it hurt as
    it is being hurt, is angry about the improper actions of at
    least one individual there.
    I don't really expect a comment from you on this, although
    I think that it was worth a chuckle. And I think it helps put
    in perspective where we are going on this.
    And, in the end, what we are talking about is the major
    justice system in America; not the judiciary, which is
    important and independent, but the major process whereby we
    identify crime and prosecute significant crime in America.
    That is the important thing, and that is what justified, I
    think, the humor but also the anger. I used the term
    ``furious'' twice because it goes to the core of what we are
    doing as a society here. This is an issue I hope we can resolve
    quickly.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back the time with the
    great hope that we can get to the core issues and all of us
    yield back our time and move on.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:25:45
    43 seconds

    I appreciate the gentleman yielding back the
    balance of his time.
    Before we adjourn, because we have just been called to
    vote, I know Mr. Johnson has a series of questions very quickly
    he would like to run through.
    But before that, I am going to ask unanimous consent to
    enter into the record the e-mail from Kyle Sampson to Harriet
    Miers that we discussed in questioning this morning, the list
    in question of the U.S. attorneys who were evaluated, and also
    the e-mails from Mr. Comey to Mr. Cummins and the e-mail from
    Mr. Comey to Mr.
    Charlton.
    And without objection, so ordered.
    [The e-mail follows:]

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:26:28

    I will now recognize Mr. Johnson for final
    questions that he may have.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:26:28
    59 seconds

    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Comey, the Department of Justice has recently confirmed
    that the Office of Inspector General and the Office of
    Professional Responsibility are investigating whether partisan
    political tests were applied to the hiring of assistant United
    State attorneys in offices that were headed by interim or
    acting United States attorneys.
    If, in fact, there was partisan political tests that were
    applied in the hiring of those U.S. attorneys, what impact do
    you believe that would have on career professionals in the
    department, on the fair and impartial administration of our
    Federal criminal justice system? And what impact would it have
    on the public's confidence in Federal criminal prosecutions,
    particularly in the area of political corruption?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:27:27
    58 seconds

    That is, in my view, the most serious thing that
    I have heard come up in this entire controversy. If that was
    going on, that strikes at the core of what the Department of
    Justice is. You just cannot do that.
    You can't hire assistant U.S. attorneys based on political
    affiliation, again, because it deprives the department of its
    lifeblood, which is the ability to stand up and have juries of
    all stripes believe what you say, and have sheriffs and judges
    and jailers and the people we deal with trust the Department of
    Justice.
    It just--that concerns me a great deal. I hope that didn't
    happen. I hope the investigation turns out that it didn't
    happen. But that is a very serious thing.
    U.S. attorneys are political appointees, as the Chairman
    said. They can be terminated for any reason. And I understood
    that I was a political appointee. But these AUSAs, they are the
    ones on whom the whole system rests. And we just cannot have
    that kind of political test.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:28:25
    23 seconds

    Well, let me ask you, if it is established
    that assistant United States attorneys over the last few years
    have been hired on a partisan political basis, what remedies do
    you think should be implemented to eliminate or minimize the
    adverse impact of those improperly based hirings?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:28:48
    17 seconds

    I don't have a suggestion at this point. I
    don't. It is very troubling. I don't know how you would put
    that genie back in the bottle, if people started to believe we
    were hiring our AUSAs for political reasons. I don't know that
    there is any window you can go to get the department's
    reputation back if that kind of stuff is going on.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:29:05

    Has any U.S. attorney expressed concerns to
    you about this problem since you left the department or even
    before you left the department?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:29:05
    22 seconds

    A couple have said to me--when I said I had
    heard about it, rumors, a couple of them had said they had
    heard second-and third-hand that this was going on, and shared
    my concern. But I don't have--and no one I spoke to had first-
    hand knowledge of it.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:29:27

    Would you care to identify those who you had
    those discussions with?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:29:27
    19 seconds

    I would love not to, because they were private
    conversations. I am not going to refuse the Committee's request
    if it becomes important, but these are people who were talking
    to me about their concerns about the department.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:29:46
    22 seconds

    All right. Well, I am sure that that can be
    handled in a more sensitive way.
    But I have one last question: What kind of leadership and
    actions will have to take place at the department to ensure
    that future prosecutions are not tainted by improperly based
    hirings?

  • Mr. Comey

    At 01:30:08
    42 seconds

    I don't know the answer to that. A whole lot of
    time and a whole lot of good work will be necessary to heal
    that kind of wound. We have already seen some of it.
    I have said nice things about Steve Biskupic, the U.S.
    attorney in Milwaukee, who is an absolutely straight guy, but
    because of this controversy, people have questioned whether he
    prosecuted people who were Democrats for partisan reasons. And
    without even knowing the cases, I would absolutely know that
    wasn't the case. But people started to doubt it, because of
    this controversy.
    So I don't know what, other than time and people just in
    individual encounters doing it well and doing it well over and
    over again, will heal a wound like that. I hope there is not a
    wound like that. But if there is, it will be hard to fix.

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:30:50

    Thank you.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:30:50

    Does the gentleman yield back?

  • Mr. Johnson

    At 01:30:50

    Yes, I yield back.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:30:50
    10 seconds

    I would like to recognize Mr. Cannon, very
    briefly, because we have just under 10 minutes to get across
    for our vote.
    Mr. Cannon?

  • Mr. Cannon

    At 01:31:00
    1 minute

    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I would just like to thank you for coming, Mr. Comey. I
    think you have put perfect balance on the importance of the
    Department of Justice, the effect of this inquiry on the morale
    of the Department of Justice, and the need to understand the
    issues--which, by the way, the gentleman has laid out very
    well. I appreciate those comments. That is where we ought to be
    going and deciding if those issues have been violated.
    And point out that, well, I don't think we have made any
    progress at all on identifying the White House's role in all
    this. I appreciate the directness and candor of your testimony,
    but it did not lead to where I think the majority was going on
    that.
    And what we have here is a consensus process of dealing
    with political appointees that happened over a significant
    period of time at a very senior level at the Department of
    Justice, and perhaps at the White House. And I suspect that, in
    the end, if there is a fair reporting of that, that is what the
    meaning of this hearing was.
    I would also hope that the press would pick up on not only
    your loyalty to the Department of Justice and your view of that
    as a very important institution in America, but also on the
    importance of what the department does and why it is important
    that we get beyond this inquiry.
    If there is wrongdoing, let's find it, let's find it
    quickly, and let's identify it. And the minority has been very
    supportive in the process of doing that.
    But if that is not the case, let's let people understand
    that we have great prosecutors in America who are not bent, who
    are not going to give Republicans or Democrats who are corrupt
    a break, and who will go forward and assure that our public
    institutions are institutions of integrity.
    I want to thank you for coming, Mr. Comey. I appreciate it
    very much.
    And yield back, Madam Chair.

  • Ms. Sanchez

    At 01:32:55
    1 minute

    Thank you, Mr. Comey. I want to thank you for
    your testimony today. I think it has been very educational,
    understanding your evaluation of the U.S. attorneys and how
    that conflicts with the evidence on the list of those who were
    to be dismissed or to be retained.
    And I want to thank you for your service to this country at
    the Department of Justice. It is clear to me that you have
    earned the very stellar reputation that you have as being fair
    and just, and speaking up when you see things that need to be
    corrected.
    We are going to head across the street for votes.
    But, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative
    days to submit any additional written questions, which we will
    forward to the witness and ask that you answer as promptly as
    you can to be made a part of the record.
    Without objection, the record will remain open for 5
    legislative days for the submission of any additional
    materials.
    Again, I want to thank everyone for participating, for
    their time and their patience.
    And this hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and
    Administrative Law is adjourned.