annihilation
05-27-2006, 11:05 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/washington/27inquire.html?ei=5090&en=e1727b9ded38852d&ex=1306382400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
By DAVID JOHNSTON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/david_johnston/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and CARL HULSE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/carl_hulse/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON, May 26 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/alberto_r_gonzales/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the F.B.I. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) director, Robert S. Mueller III (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/robert_s_iii_mueller/index.html?inline=nyt-per), and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member's office, government officials said Friday.
Mr. Gonzales was joined in raising the possibility of resignation by the deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, the officials said. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty told associates that they had an obligation to protect evidence in a criminal case and would be unwilling to carry out any White House order to return the material to Congress.
The potential showdown was averted Thursday when President Bush ordered the evidence to be sealed for 45 days to give Congress and the Justice Department a chance to work out a deal.
The evidence was seized by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents last Saturday night in a search of the office of Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana. The search set off an uproar of protest by House leaders in both parties, who said the intrusion by an executive branch agency into a Congressional office violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. They demanded that the Justice Department return the evidence.
The possibility of resignations underscored the gravity of the crisis that gripped the Justice Department as the administration grappled with how to balance the pressure from its own party on Capitol Hill against the principle that a criminal investigation, especially one involving a member of Congress, should be kept well clear of political considerations.
It is not clear precisely what message Mr. Gonzales delivered to Mr. Bush when they met Thursday morning at the White House, or whether he informed the president of the resignation talk. But hours later, the White House announced that the evidence would be sealed for 45 days in the custody of the solicitor general, the Justice Department official who represents the government before the Supreme Court. That arrangement ended the talk of resignations.
F.B.I. officials would not comment Friday on Mr. Mueller's thinking or on whether his views had been communicated to the president.
The White House said Mr. Bush devised the 45-day plan as a way to cool tempers in Congress and the Justice Department. "The president saw both sides becoming more entrenched," said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's counselor. "Emotions were running high; that's why the president felt he had to weigh in."
Tensions were especially high because officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. viewed the Congressional protest, led by Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/j_dennis_hastert/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and House Republicans, as largely a proxy fight for battles likely to come over criminal investigations into other Republicans in Congress.
Separate investigations into the activities of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/jack_abramoff/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Randy Cunningham (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/randy_cunningham/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the former congressman from California, have placed several other Republicans under scrutiny; in the Cunningham case, federal authorities have informally asked to interview nine former staff members of the House Appropriations and Intelligence Committees.
By Friday, the strong words and tense behind-the-scenes meetings of the previous few days had been replaced, in public at least, by conciliatory terms and images of accommodation. Mr. Gonzales traveled to Capitol Hill and met with Senator Bill Frist (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/bill_frist/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Tennessee, the majority leader, as Republican leaders explored a formal procedure to cover any future searches.
"We've been working hard already, and we'll continue to do so pursuant to the president's order," Mr. Gonzales told reporters on his way to the meeting.
After the meeting, Mr. Frist said, "I want to know as leader exactly what would happen if there was a similar sort of case."
Senior lawmakers in the House and Senate said their intent was not to prohibit searches of Congressional offices if there was a legitimate reason. But they said the Jefferson case powerfully illustrated how Congress and the administration had no set guidelines for how such a search should be done, what notice was required and how law enforcement and House authorities would interact.
But within the Justice Department and the F.B.I., some officials complained that the 45-day cooling-off arrangement was a politically motivated intrusion into the investigative process. Others said the deal was preferable to what some called the potential "cataclysm" of possible resignations if the department had been ordered to give up the material, as one official briefed on the negotiations described it. This official and others at the department and the F.B.I. were granted anonymity to discuss a continuing criminal case.
At the Justice Department, there was hope that the courts might quickly resolve the issue. Government lawyers prepared a brief on Friday in opposition to the motion filed by lawyers for Mr. Jefferson seeking the return of materials taken from his office. The F.B.I. search was conducted on the basis of a search warrant issued by a federal judge, T. S. Ellis, in Alexandria, Va.
On Friday, Senator Trent Lott (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/trent_lott/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Republican of Mississippi and chairman of the Rules Committee, said he had been meeting with Senate counsel to explore potential procedures and had given Mr. Frist a memorandum on a possible approach.
"The Justice Department is going to have to look at what we put in place and agree to it," Mr. Lott said. "I hope we can work it out."
But he said, "I am perfectly willing to get it on with the administration and take it right to the Supreme Court if they want to argue over it."
To some, the most astounding aspect of the Jefferson clash is that the question has never arisen before in two centuries of assorted Congressional criminality and misconduct.
At the same time, law enforcement officials said the deal did not mean that the Jefferson investigation would stop until the disagreement about the evidence was resolved. Mr. Jefferson has denied wrongdoing, but within law enforcement circles it is regarded as all but certain — based on evidence already collected — that he will face indictment on bribery-related charges.
On Friday, Brent Pfeffer, a former aide to the lawmaker, was sentenced to eight years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy charges related to a kickback scheme involving Mr. Jefferson, identified in court documents only as "Representative A."
Mr. Pfeffer said he was an intermediary in an effort by Mr. Jefferson to obtain money from a Kentucky telecommunications firm for help getting contracts in Nigeria.
The investigation is being handled by the United States attorney's office in Alexandria, which until recently was headed by Mr. McNulty. He was the chief negotiator for the Justice Department in trying to reach an accommodation with the House.
Mr. McNulty seemed like the perfect point person on Capitol Hill for Mr. Gonzales. He was the chief counsel for the House majority leader when former Representative Dick Armey (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/dick_armey/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Republican of Texas, had the job. And Mr. McNulty was chief counsel and spokesman for the Republican majority on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per).
But it was Mr. McNulty who appeared to lead the protest at the Justice Department, telling House officials that he would quit rather than obey an order to return the search material to Mr. Jefferson.
Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting for this article.
By DAVID JOHNSTON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/david_johnston/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and CARL HULSE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/carl_hulse/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON, May 26 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/alberto_r_gonzales/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the F.B.I. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) director, Robert S. Mueller III (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/robert_s_iii_mueller/index.html?inline=nyt-per), and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member's office, government officials said Friday.
Mr. Gonzales was joined in raising the possibility of resignation by the deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, the officials said. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty told associates that they had an obligation to protect evidence in a criminal case and would be unwilling to carry out any White House order to return the material to Congress.
The potential showdown was averted Thursday when President Bush ordered the evidence to be sealed for 45 days to give Congress and the Justice Department a chance to work out a deal.
The evidence was seized by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents last Saturday night in a search of the office of Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana. The search set off an uproar of protest by House leaders in both parties, who said the intrusion by an executive branch agency into a Congressional office violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. They demanded that the Justice Department return the evidence.
The possibility of resignations underscored the gravity of the crisis that gripped the Justice Department as the administration grappled with how to balance the pressure from its own party on Capitol Hill against the principle that a criminal investigation, especially one involving a member of Congress, should be kept well clear of political considerations.
It is not clear precisely what message Mr. Gonzales delivered to Mr. Bush when they met Thursday morning at the White House, or whether he informed the president of the resignation talk. But hours later, the White House announced that the evidence would be sealed for 45 days in the custody of the solicitor general, the Justice Department official who represents the government before the Supreme Court. That arrangement ended the talk of resignations.
F.B.I. officials would not comment Friday on Mr. Mueller's thinking or on whether his views had been communicated to the president.
The White House said Mr. Bush devised the 45-day plan as a way to cool tempers in Congress and the Justice Department. "The president saw both sides becoming more entrenched," said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's counselor. "Emotions were running high; that's why the president felt he had to weigh in."
Tensions were especially high because officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. viewed the Congressional protest, led by Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/j_dennis_hastert/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and House Republicans, as largely a proxy fight for battles likely to come over criminal investigations into other Republicans in Congress.
Separate investigations into the activities of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/jack_abramoff/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Randy Cunningham (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/randy_cunningham/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the former congressman from California, have placed several other Republicans under scrutiny; in the Cunningham case, federal authorities have informally asked to interview nine former staff members of the House Appropriations and Intelligence Committees.
By Friday, the strong words and tense behind-the-scenes meetings of the previous few days had been replaced, in public at least, by conciliatory terms and images of accommodation. Mr. Gonzales traveled to Capitol Hill and met with Senator Bill Frist (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/bill_frist/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Tennessee, the majority leader, as Republican leaders explored a formal procedure to cover any future searches.
"We've been working hard already, and we'll continue to do so pursuant to the president's order," Mr. Gonzales told reporters on his way to the meeting.
After the meeting, Mr. Frist said, "I want to know as leader exactly what would happen if there was a similar sort of case."
Senior lawmakers in the House and Senate said their intent was not to prohibit searches of Congressional offices if there was a legitimate reason. But they said the Jefferson case powerfully illustrated how Congress and the administration had no set guidelines for how such a search should be done, what notice was required and how law enforcement and House authorities would interact.
But within the Justice Department and the F.B.I., some officials complained that the 45-day cooling-off arrangement was a politically motivated intrusion into the investigative process. Others said the deal was preferable to what some called the potential "cataclysm" of possible resignations if the department had been ordered to give up the material, as one official briefed on the negotiations described it. This official and others at the department and the F.B.I. were granted anonymity to discuss a continuing criminal case.
At the Justice Department, there was hope that the courts might quickly resolve the issue. Government lawyers prepared a brief on Friday in opposition to the motion filed by lawyers for Mr. Jefferson seeking the return of materials taken from his office. The F.B.I. search was conducted on the basis of a search warrant issued by a federal judge, T. S. Ellis, in Alexandria, Va.
On Friday, Senator Trent Lott (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/trent_lott/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Republican of Mississippi and chairman of the Rules Committee, said he had been meeting with Senate counsel to explore potential procedures and had given Mr. Frist a memorandum on a possible approach.
"The Justice Department is going to have to look at what we put in place and agree to it," Mr. Lott said. "I hope we can work it out."
But he said, "I am perfectly willing to get it on with the administration and take it right to the Supreme Court if they want to argue over it."
To some, the most astounding aspect of the Jefferson clash is that the question has never arisen before in two centuries of assorted Congressional criminality and misconduct.
At the same time, law enforcement officials said the deal did not mean that the Jefferson investigation would stop until the disagreement about the evidence was resolved. Mr. Jefferson has denied wrongdoing, but within law enforcement circles it is regarded as all but certain — based on evidence already collected — that he will face indictment on bribery-related charges.
On Friday, Brent Pfeffer, a former aide to the lawmaker, was sentenced to eight years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy charges related to a kickback scheme involving Mr. Jefferson, identified in court documents only as "Representative A."
Mr. Pfeffer said he was an intermediary in an effort by Mr. Jefferson to obtain money from a Kentucky telecommunications firm for help getting contracts in Nigeria.
The investigation is being handled by the United States attorney's office in Alexandria, which until recently was headed by Mr. McNulty. He was the chief negotiator for the Justice Department in trying to reach an accommodation with the House.
Mr. McNulty seemed like the perfect point person on Capitol Hill for Mr. Gonzales. He was the chief counsel for the House majority leader when former Representative Dick Armey (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/dick_armey/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Republican of Texas, had the job. And Mr. McNulty was chief counsel and spokesman for the Republican majority on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per).
But it was Mr. McNulty who appeared to lead the protest at the Justice Department, telling House officials that he would quit rather than obey an order to return the search material to Mr. Jefferson.
Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting for this article.