The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General The Honorable Paul McNulty, Deputy Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 March 21, 2007 Dear Attorney General Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General McNulty: In recent weeks serious questions have been raised about potential political interference and partisan involvement in Justice Department decision making in connection with criminal investigations and with the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by President Bush and the Justice Department. If true, these improper actions would represent a fundamental breakdown of our criminal justice system and a basic violation of the principle that political and partisan considerations should not be involved in decisions about criminal matters. Serious concerns have been raised, for example, about whether U.S. Attorneys were fired for political or partisan reasons, in connection with their actions in cases involving allegations of voter fraud, public corruption and incorrect election results. Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico, one of the eight fired U.S. Attorneys, recently has been quoted as saying, I thought I was insulated from politics. But know I find out that main Justice was up to its eyeballs in partisan political maneuvering. (The New York Times, March 18, 2007). According to a report in The Washington Post (March 21, 2007), records show that Kyle Sampson, a former top aide of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, had at one point called Iglesias a diverse up-and-comer. According to The Post article: Iglesias was not added to the firing list until last fall; he has called his dismissal a political hit. He told Congress he was improperly pressured in pre-election telephone calls from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) about a corruption investigation he was heading at the time. Given the questions that have been raised about potential political and partisan involvement in Justice Department criminal cases and in the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys, Democracy 21 calls on you to inform the public whether there have been any
2 attempts at political interference or partisan intervention in the Justice Department s criminal investigation of the Jack Abramoff scandals. We believe that it is incumbent on the Justice Department to tell the American people whether any political interference or partisan intervention by members of Congress, White House officials or others has occurred in the Abramoff-related criminal investigations, as, for example, Mr. Iglesias has alleged occurred by members of Congress in a public corruption case he was investigating. We strongly urge you to communicate with all Justice Department officials involved in the Abramoff-related investigations and prosecutions in order to provide to the public the information we are requesting. Democracy 21 also calls on you to inform the public about the level of resources currently assigned to the Abramoff-related criminal investigations and to inform the public about how the current resources assigned to this matter compares with the resources previously available for the Abramoff-related investigations. The public has a right to know whether adequate resources are being made available to investigate in a timely and effective manner the Abramoff scandals, the worst congressional corruption scandals in three decades. We strongly urge you to review and determine whether career prosecutors in the Justice Department s criminal division working on this matter, including career prosecutors in the Public Integrity Section, and other career prosecutors that may be involved from United States Attorneys offices, believe they have sufficient resources to conduct the Abramoff-related investigations in a timely and effective manner. Democracy 21 recognizes that the Justice Department investigation into the Abramoff scandals has resulted, to date, in a number of criminal plea bargain agreements and convictions, including Jack Abramoff and his associate Michael Scanlon. The Justice Department deserves strong credit for these results. At the same time, based on published reports, it appears that substantial work remains to be done and important matters remain to be resolved by the Justice Department regarding the Abramoff scandals. For example, while the core of the Abramoff scandals involved efforts by Abramoff and his associates to buy influence with members of Congress, action has been taken by the Justice Department, to date, against one Member, former Representative Bob Ney (R-OH). Serious questions reportedly have been raised regarding the Abramoff scandals about other former and current members of Congress, and about the roles played in the scandals by the spouses of former and current Members, which do not appear to have been resolved yet by the Justice Department.
3 This is just one example of why the public is entitled to know whether any political or partisan attempts have been made to intervene or interfere with the Justice Department investigation of the Abramoff scandals. On the question of resources for the investigation, a recent Legal Times article (February 26, 2007) said: The public integrity section s handling of the Abramoff scandal has led to some internal friction with prosecutors from other parts of the Justice Department as well as investigative agents. And despite the fact that the case has been Justice s largest public-corruption matter in decades, the investigation has been beset by the high turnover of prosecutors and supervisors in the two sections running the probe, both of which have operated without a permanent leader for more than a year, according to current and former government officials and lawyers with knowledge of the case. (Legal Times interviewed more than a dozen such sources, all of whom were granted anonymity to discuss a pending investigation.) Since this article was published, Bill Welch has been named to serve as the permanent head of the Public Integrity Section. Given the important matters that apparently still need to be resolved concerning the Abramoff scandals, and given that these matters apparently involve current and former members of Congress, and spouses of current and former Members, the public is entitled to know whether sufficient resources are being made available to conduct the Justice Department investigation into these matters. As you are aware, Democracy 21 in the past has raised the issue of whether the Justice Department is ensuring that no political or partisan interference occurs in the investigation of the Abramoff scandals. This was based in part on previous disturbing reports of political interference at the Justice Department with the decisions of career professionals in cases involving the Voting Rights Act and the tobacco industry. These reports affirmed the need for public assurances from the Justice Department that no political or partisan interference would take place in the criminal investigations into the Abramoff scandals. On December 13, 2005, Democracy 21 wrote to Glenn A. Fine, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, urging the IG to take pro-active steps to ensure that the Abramoff investigation was insulated from political pressure and interference. On January 5, 2006, Mr. Fine responded to Democracy 21 that the issues set forth in our December 13, 2005 letter fall outside the jurisdiction of the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Instead, Mr. Fine indicated that these kind of issues fall within the jurisdiction of the Department s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), not OIG. In his letter, Mr. Fine said he contacted the counsel for OPR and forwarded our December 13 letter to that office. On February 9, 2006, H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel to the Office of Professional Responsibility, informed us that our letter to the Inspector General had been forwarded to
4 the OPR and that he had determined that our request falls outside the jurisdiction of the Office of Professional Responsibility. Mr. Jarrett said that the OPR does not have jurisdiction to monitor ongoing investigations by components of the Criminal Division. Given these responses that the Department s OIG and OPR lack jurisdiction over these matters, Democracy 21 sent a letter on June 7, 2006 to Attorney General Gonzales requesting that all steps be taken by the Attorney General to ensure that there would be no political interference with the criminal investigation being conducted by the Justice Department into the Abramoff scandals. We also asked for similar assurances that all steps would be taken to ensure that there would be no political interference with the criminal investigations being conducted by the U.S. Attorneys in San Diego and Los Angeles into activities that potentially involved members of Congress and that might be related to the same kind of activities that led to former Representative Randy Duke Cunningham s (R-CA) criminal conviction, and into the criminal investigation involving Representative William Jefferson (D-LA). In a June 19, 2006 letter, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Keeney responded to our letter of June 7, 2006 stating: We assure you that the Department of Justice takes allegations regarding public corruption very seriously, and we will handle all such matters fairly and appropriately. The matters that you describe have been, and will continue to be, handled by career prosecutors in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice and the United States Attorney s Offices. In conclusion, based on the recent serious questions that have been raised about the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys and about political interference and partisan intervention at the Justice Department, Democracy 21 believes it is incumbent that you make clear to the public whether there have been any attempts at political interference or partisan intervention in the Justice Department s criminal investigation of the Abramoff scandals, by members of Congress, White House officials or others. We also believe that you should provide the public with similar information regarding the criminal investigation in California and the criminal investigation involving Representative Jefferson that are discussed above. Democracy 21 also calls on you to provide the public information requested regarding the resources currently available to conduct the criminal investigation into the Abramoff scandals. Sincerely, Fred Wertheimer President
5 Copy to: Alice S. Fisher Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division Bill Welch Chief, Public Integrity Section Mary K. Butler Trial Attorney, Public Integrity Section Glenn A. Fine Inspector General H. Marshall Jarrett Counsel, Office of Professional Responsibility George S. Cardona Interim U.S. Attorney, Central District of California Karen Hewitt Interim U.S. Attorney, Southern District of California